|
''Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia'' ((フランス語:L'anti-Oedipe)) is a 1972 book by philosopher Gilles Deleuze and psychoanalyst Félix Guattari. It is the first volume of ''Capitalism and Schizophrenia'', the second being ''A Thousand Plateaus'' (1980). Deleuze and Guattari analyse the relationship of desire to reality and to capitalist society in particular; they address questions of human psychology, economics, society, and history.〔Foucault (1977, 14).〕 ''Anti-Oedipus'' is divided into four sections. In the first, Deleuze and Guattari outline a "materialist psychiatry" modeled on the unconscious in its relationship with society and its productive processes. They introduce their concept of "desiring-production" (which inter-relates "desiring machines" and a "body without organs"). In the second section, Deleuze and Guattari offer a critique of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis that focuses on its theory of the Oedipus complex. In the third section, Deleuze and Guattari re-write Karl Marx's materialist account of the history of society's modes of production as a development through "primitive," "despotic," and "capitalist" societies and details their different organisations of production, "inscription" (which corresponds to Marx's "distribution" and "exchange"), and consumption. In the final section, they develop a critical practice that they call "schizoanalysis." The authors draw on and criticize the ideas of many thinkers; in addition to Marx and Freud, these include Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Wilhelm Reich, R. D. Laing, David Cooper, Carl Jung, Melanie Klein, Jean Oury, Georges Bataille, Karl Jaspers, Louis Hjelmslev, Charles Sanders Peirce, Gregory Bateson, Pierre Clastres, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Pierre Klossowski, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Monod, Lewis Mumford, Victor Turner, Karl August Wittfogel, Charles Fourier, Immanuel Kant, and Baruch Spinoza.〔Deleuze and Guattari (1980, 423-427).〕 They also draw on creative writers and artists such as Antonin Artaud, Samuel Beckett, Georg Büchner, Samuel Butler, Franz Kafka, Jack Kerouac, Heinrich von Kleist, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Marcel Proust, Daniel Paul Schreber, and J. M. W. Turner.〔 Foremost among the influences on Deleuze and Guattari stands Friedrich Nietzsche—''Anti-Oedipus'' may be considered a kind of sequel to ''The Antichrist''.〔Seem (1977, xviii, xx).〕 Some of Guattari's diary entries, correspondence with Deleuze, and notes on the development of the book were published posthumously as ''The Anti-Oedipus Papers'' (2004).〔Guattari (2004).〕 ==Schizoanalysis== (詳細はschizoanalysis" is a militant social and political analysis that responds to what they see as the reactionary tendencies of psychoanalysis.〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 54, 108, 127-128, 325-xx). Deleuze and Guattari argue that there was no specific "turning point" in the theoretical development of Freudianism at which it became reactionary; instead, it contained "revolutionary, reformist, and reactionary elements" from the start. "We refuse to play 'take it or leave it'," they write. This politically ambiguous mixture of tendencies in psychoanalysis arises, they argue, from its ambiguous relationship with its discoveries: "As if every great doctrine were not a ''combined formation,'' constructed from bits and pieces, various intermingled codes and flux, partial elements and derivatives, that constitute its very life or becoming. As if we could reproach someone for having an ambiguous relationship with psychoanalysis, without first mentioning that psychoanalysis owes its existence to a relationship, theoretically and practically ambiguous, with what it discovers and the forces that it wields" (1972, 128). Despite the militancy of the analyses proposed within Deleuze and Guattari's project, they insist that "no political program will be elaborated within the framework of schizoanalysis" (1972, 415). Guattari developed the implications of their theory for a concrete political project in his book with the Italian autonomist marxist philosopher Antonio Negri, ''Communists Like Us'' (1985). For the variable relations between the socius of capital and revolutionary autonomous territorialities, see Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 410).〕 It proposes a functional evaluation of the direct investments of desire—whether revolutionary or reactionary—in a field that is social, biological, historical, and geographical.〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 93, 115, 322-333, 354, 400).〕 Deleuze and Guattari develop four theses of schizoanalysis: # Every unconscious libidinal investment is social and bears upon a socio-historical field. # Unconscious libidinal investments of group or desire are distinct from preconscious investments of class or interest. # Non-familial libidinal investments of the social field are primary in relation to familial investments. # Social libidinal investments are distinguished according to two poles: a paranoiac, reactionary, fascisizing pole and a schizoid revolutionary pole.〔First thesis (1972, 375); second thesis (1972, 377); third thesis (1972, 390); fourth thesis (1972, 401).〕 In contrast to the psychoanalytic conception, schizoanalysis assumes that the libido does not need to be de-sexualised, sublimated, or to go by way of metamorphoses in order to invest economic or political factors. "The truth is," Deleuze and Guattari explain, "sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on. () Flags, nations, armies, banks get a lot of people aroused."〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 322-333).〕 In the terms of classical Marxism, desire is part of the economic, infrastructural "base" of society, they argue, not an ideological, subjective "superstructure."〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 114, 378). In failing to recognise this, Deleuze and Guattari argue, Wilhelm Reich fell short of the materialist psychiatry towards which he aimed and was unable to provide an adequate answer to his question "Why did the masses desire fascism?"〕 Unconscious libidinal investments of desire coexist without necessarily coinciding with preconscious investments made according to the needs or ideological interests of the subject (individual or collective) who desires.〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 114, 322). Deleuze and Guattari qualify this distinction between unconscious desire and preconscious need or interest when they write: "It is doubtless true that interests predispose us to a given libidinal investment"; however, they go on to insist once again that the interests "are not identical with this investment" (1972, 379).〕 A form of social production and reproduction, along with its economic and financial mechanisms, its political formations, and so on, can be desired as such, in whole or in part, independently of the interests of the desiring-subject. It was not by means of a metaphor, even a paternal metaphor, that Hitler was able to sexually arouse the fascists. It is not by means of a metaphor that a banking or stock-market transaction, a claim, a coupon, a credit, is able to arouse people who are not necessarily bankers. And what about the effects of money that grows, money that produces more money? There are socioeconomic "complexes" that are also veritable complexes of the unconscious, and that communicate a voluptuous wave from the top to the bottom of their hierarchy (the military–industrial complex). And ideology, Oedipus, and the phallus have nothing to do with this, because they depend on it rather than being its impetus.〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 114-115).〕 Schizoanalysis seeks to show how "in the subject who desires, desire can be made to desire its own repression—whence the role of the death instinct in the circuit connecting desire to the social sphere."〔Section 2.5 ''The Conjunctive Synthesis of Consumption-Consummation'', pp. 98, 105〕 Desire produces "even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social reproduction."〔Deleuze and Guattari (1972, 31).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Anti-Oedipus」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|