[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Love and sexuality are the exponents or the352 ANTI-OEDIPUS indicators, this time unconscious, of the Mhidinal investments of the socialheld.Every loved or desired being serves as a collective agent ofenunciation.And it is certainly not, as Freud believed, the libido thatmust be desexualized and sublimated in order to invest society and itsflows; on the contrary, it is love, desire, and their flows that manifest thedirectly social character of the nonsublimated libido and its sexualinvestments.For those looking for a thesis topic on psychoanalysis, one shouldnot suggest vast considerations on analytic epistemology, but modestand rigorous topics such as the theory of maids or domestic servants inFreud's thought.There are some real indices in such areas.On thesubject of maids who are present everywhere in the cases studied byFreud there occurs an exemplary hesitation in Freudian thought, ahesitation too quickly resolved in favor of what was to become a dogmaof psychoanalysis.Philippe Girard, in unpublished remarks that seem tous to have a wide application, situates the problem at several levels.Inthe first place, Freud discovers "his own" Oedipus in a complex socialcontext that brings into play the older half brother from the rich side ofthe family, and the thievish maid as the poor woman.Secondly, thefamilial romance and fantasy activity in general will be presented byFreud as a veritable drift of the social field, where one substitutespersons of a higher or lower rank for the parents (the son of a princesskidnapped by gypsies, or the son of a poor man taken in by bourgeois);Oedipus was already doing this when he claimed a low birth of servantparents.Thirdly, the Rat Man not only installs his neurosis in a socialfield determined from one end to the other as military, he not only makesit revolve around a form of torture originating in the Orient, but also inthis very field he causes his neurosis to oscillate between two polesconstituted by the rich woman and the po or woman, under the effect of astrange unconscious communication with the unconscious of the father.Lacan was the first to emphasize these themes, which were enough tochallenge the whole of Oedipus; and he shows the existence of a "socialcomplex" where the subject at times attempts to assume his ownrole but at the price of a splitting of the sexual object into a richwoman and a poor woman and at other times ensures the unity of theobject, but this time at the price of a splitting of "his own socialfunction" at the other extremity of the chain.Fourthly, the Wolf Mandemonstrates a marked taste for the poor woman: the peasant girl on allfours washing some clothes, or the servant scrubbing the floor.43The fundamental problem with regard to these texts is the follow-ing: must we see, in all these sexual-social investments of the libido andthese object choices, mere dependences of a familial Oedipus? Must weINTRODUCTION TO SCHIZOANALYSIS 353 save Oedipus at all costs by interpreting these investments and object choices asdefenses against incest? (Thus the familial romance, or Oedipus's own wish tohave been born of poor parents who would cleanse him of his crime.) Must thesebe understood as compromises and substitutes for incest? (Thus in "The WolfMan," the peasant girl as a substitute for the sister, having the same name as she,or the girl on hands and knees, working, as a substitute for the mother surprisedin the coitus scene; and in The Rat Man, the disguised repetition of the paternalsituation, making it possible to enrich or impregnate Oedipus with a fourth"symbolic" term charged with accounting for the splittings through which thelibido invests the social field.) Freud makes a firm choice of this last direction; allthe more firm in that, according to his own confession, he wants to set thingsstraight with Jung and Adler.And after having ascertained in the Wolf Man casethe existence of an "intention of debasing" the woman as love object, heconcludes that it is merely a matter of a "rationalization," and that the "trueunderlying determination" almost always leads us back to the sister, to themommy, considered as the only "purely erotic motives"! Taking up the eternalrefrain of Oedipus, the eternal lullaby, he writes: "A child pays no regard tosocial distinctions, which have little meaning for it as yet; and it classes people ofinferior rank with its parents if they love it as its parents do."44We always fall back into the false alternative where Freud was le> byOedipus, and then confirmed in this position by his controversy with Adler andJung: either, he says, you will abandon the sexual position of the libido in favorof an individual and social will to power, or in favor of a prehistoric collectiveunconscious or you will recognize Oedipus, making of it the sexual abode ofthe libido, and you will make daddy-mommy into "the purely erotic motive."Oedipus: the touchstone of the pure psychoanalyst, on which to sharpen thesacred blade of a successful castration.Yet what was the other direction,glimpsed for a moment by Freud apropos of the familial romance, before theOedipal trapdoor slams shut? It is the direction rediscovered, at leasthypotheti-cally, by Philippe Girard: there is no family where vacuoles are notarranged, and where extrafamihal breaks are not manifest, by means of which thelibido is engulfed in order to sexually invest the nonfamilial i.e., the otherclass as determined under the empirical rubrics of the "richest and the poorest,"and sometimes both at once.Wouldn't the Great Other, indispensable to theposition of desire, be the Social Other, social difference apprehended andinvested as the nonfamily within the family itself? The other class is by no meansgrasped by the libido as a magnified or impoverished image of the mother, but asthe foreign, the3S4 ANTI-OEDIPUS nonmother, the nonfather, the nonfamily, the index of what is nonhuman in sex,and without which the libido would not assemble its desiring-machines.Classstruggle goes to the heart of the ordeal of desire.The familial romance is not aderivative of Oedipus; Oedipus is a drift of the familial romance, and thereby ofthe social field [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Love and sexuality are the exponents or the352 ANTI-OEDIPUS indicators, this time unconscious, of the Mhidinal investments of the socialheld.Every loved or desired being serves as a collective agent ofenunciation.And it is certainly not, as Freud believed, the libido thatmust be desexualized and sublimated in order to invest society and itsflows; on the contrary, it is love, desire, and their flows that manifest thedirectly social character of the nonsublimated libido and its sexualinvestments.For those looking for a thesis topic on psychoanalysis, one shouldnot suggest vast considerations on analytic epistemology, but modestand rigorous topics such as the theory of maids or domestic servants inFreud's thought.There are some real indices in such areas.On thesubject of maids who are present everywhere in the cases studied byFreud there occurs an exemplary hesitation in Freudian thought, ahesitation too quickly resolved in favor of what was to become a dogmaof psychoanalysis.Philippe Girard, in unpublished remarks that seem tous to have a wide application, situates the problem at several levels.Inthe first place, Freud discovers "his own" Oedipus in a complex socialcontext that brings into play the older half brother from the rich side ofthe family, and the thievish maid as the poor woman.Secondly, thefamilial romance and fantasy activity in general will be presented byFreud as a veritable drift of the social field, where one substitutespersons of a higher or lower rank for the parents (the son of a princesskidnapped by gypsies, or the son of a poor man taken in by bourgeois);Oedipus was already doing this when he claimed a low birth of servantparents.Thirdly, the Rat Man not only installs his neurosis in a socialfield determined from one end to the other as military, he not only makesit revolve around a form of torture originating in the Orient, but also inthis very field he causes his neurosis to oscillate between two polesconstituted by the rich woman and the po or woman, under the effect of astrange unconscious communication with the unconscious of the father.Lacan was the first to emphasize these themes, which were enough tochallenge the whole of Oedipus; and he shows the existence of a "socialcomplex" where the subject at times attempts to assume his ownrole but at the price of a splitting of the sexual object into a richwoman and a poor woman and at other times ensures the unity of theobject, but this time at the price of a splitting of "his own socialfunction" at the other extremity of the chain.Fourthly, the Wolf Mandemonstrates a marked taste for the poor woman: the peasant girl on allfours washing some clothes, or the servant scrubbing the floor.43The fundamental problem with regard to these texts is the follow-ing: must we see, in all these sexual-social investments of the libido andthese object choices, mere dependences of a familial Oedipus? Must weINTRODUCTION TO SCHIZOANALYSIS 353 save Oedipus at all costs by interpreting these investments and object choices asdefenses against incest? (Thus the familial romance, or Oedipus's own wish tohave been born of poor parents who would cleanse him of his crime.) Must thesebe understood as compromises and substitutes for incest? (Thus in "The WolfMan," the peasant girl as a substitute for the sister, having the same name as she,or the girl on hands and knees, working, as a substitute for the mother surprisedin the coitus scene; and in The Rat Man, the disguised repetition of the paternalsituation, making it possible to enrich or impregnate Oedipus with a fourth"symbolic" term charged with accounting for the splittings through which thelibido invests the social field.) Freud makes a firm choice of this last direction; allthe more firm in that, according to his own confession, he wants to set thingsstraight with Jung and Adler.And after having ascertained in the Wolf Man casethe existence of an "intention of debasing" the woman as love object, heconcludes that it is merely a matter of a "rationalization," and that the "trueunderlying determination" almost always leads us back to the sister, to themommy, considered as the only "purely erotic motives"! Taking up the eternalrefrain of Oedipus, the eternal lullaby, he writes: "A child pays no regard tosocial distinctions, which have little meaning for it as yet; and it classes people ofinferior rank with its parents if they love it as its parents do."44We always fall back into the false alternative where Freud was le> byOedipus, and then confirmed in this position by his controversy with Adler andJung: either, he says, you will abandon the sexual position of the libido in favorof an individual and social will to power, or in favor of a prehistoric collectiveunconscious or you will recognize Oedipus, making of it the sexual abode ofthe libido, and you will make daddy-mommy into "the purely erotic motive."Oedipus: the touchstone of the pure psychoanalyst, on which to sharpen thesacred blade of a successful castration.Yet what was the other direction,glimpsed for a moment by Freud apropos of the familial romance, before theOedipal trapdoor slams shut? It is the direction rediscovered, at leasthypotheti-cally, by Philippe Girard: there is no family where vacuoles are notarranged, and where extrafamihal breaks are not manifest, by means of which thelibido is engulfed in order to sexually invest the nonfamilial i.e., the otherclass as determined under the empirical rubrics of the "richest and the poorest,"and sometimes both at once.Wouldn't the Great Other, indispensable to theposition of desire, be the Social Other, social difference apprehended andinvested as the nonfamily within the family itself? The other class is by no meansgrasped by the libido as a magnified or impoverished image of the mother, but asthe foreign, the3S4 ANTI-OEDIPUS nonmother, the nonfather, the nonfamily, the index of what is nonhuman in sex,and without which the libido would not assemble its desiring-machines.Classstruggle goes to the heart of the ordeal of desire.The familial romance is not aderivative of Oedipus; Oedipus is a drift of the familial romance, and thereby ofthe social field [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]