Morgan Blackledge's Reviews > Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

This book is AMAZING.

It’s IMPORTANT.

It’s ENLIGHTENING.

And it is also EXCRUCIATINGLY DIFFICULT.

At least it was for THIS GUY.

And it’s LONG.

I FINALLY FINISHED IT.

And I’m REAL GLAD I DID.

But if I run a thought experiment wherein I am presented with the option of going back in time and rereading this beast.

Right now.

I’m like 50/50 on that.

It would be a BIG CHOICE.

I’d REALLY have to think about that.

Anyway. I will TRY to say worthwhile and interesting about this FANTASTICALLY DENSE, and QUITE NEARLY IMPENETRABLE TEXT. But be forewarned. I can’t guarantee that I can/will.

To start:

Anti-Oedipus is Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s (D&G) - aka Dolce and Gabbana - ABSOLUTELY INSANE (in the best way) critique of Freudian psychoanalysis. Coupled with an EQUALLY INSANE radical rethinking of social/political theory.

Of course.

When I say INSANE.

I mean COMPLETELY SANE.

But FOR SURE EXTREME in many ways.

This book is so far off the chain.

CRITIQUE OF FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS

D&G challenge the Freudian over commitment to the Oedipus complex. D&G argue (ad nauseam) that Oedipal phenomena is not a universal (trans cultural) psychological reality but a construct, that psychoanalysis/psychoanalysts naïvely PROJET on to their analysands, and onto the WORLD.

At this point in history, this hardly sounds RADICAL. We have all pretty much seen through the Freudian master narrative. And rightly deconstructed it as a SERIOUSLY EPICALLY consequential theory. With a MASSIVE impact on the modern sense of self. But not exactly scientific gospel.

But in 1972 it was RADICAL.

In fact, I remember being in Ray Mondini’s Methodologies of Modernism class, the San Francisco Art Institute in 1994 and feeling shocked by the notion that Freudian theory was a construct, and not the CAPITAL “T” TRUTH.

The fact that D&G were deconstructing Freud and Marx in 1972 was fairly remarkable. But the WAY they were doing it was (again) INSANE.

D&G argued that psychoanalysis (specifically the Oedipal construct) reduced the complexities of desire to familial structures (picture mom and dad and you in an interminable love triangle).

D&G continue that the Oedipal reflection functioned to repress more dynamic, “productive” forms of desire, which D&G aimed to liberate.

SCHIZOANALYSIS

D&G viewed schizophrenia not as a pathology but as a process that reveals the potential for breaking free from repressive systems.

D&G created a readical alternative to psychoanalysis called "schizoanalysis," which focused on the free flow of desire and the breaking down of conventional social structures.

D&G aimed to emulate/harnis the liberating aspects of schizophrenic psychosis in their writing, philosophy, psychology and politics.

DESIRE

D&G posited that desire is inherently productive and creative, and further posited that desire is an integral part of social and economic systems.

Rather than REPRESS DESIRE.

D&G wanted to LIBERATE DESIRE.

CAPITALISM

D&G argue that traditional social structures, norms, and values (like family, religion, and state) impose certain codes on how desires should be expressed and fulfilled.

D&G argue that capitalism decodes and de-territorializes desire. Meaning it liberates desire from traditional constraints, and allows desire to flow in unpredictable ways. But then capitalism recaptures desire (re-territorializes) in the form of consumerism commodification and control.

IN OTHER (MAYBE LESS CONFUSING) WORDS

CAPITALISM “decodes/de-territorializes” desire.

Meaning it converts ANYTHING/EVERYTHING you may desire into a CASH VALUE. And it makes it ALL AVAILABLE to you, ANY TIME ANY WHERE, if you HAVE and PAY THE CHASH.

And JUST LIKE THAT.

DEISRE is LIBERATED from MATERIAL/SOCIAL constraints.

We’re FREE.

So OF COURSE YES!

RIGHT?

BUT!

Then all that INFINITE decoded/de-territorialized DESRE becomes re-territorialized in the form of CONSUMERISM.

And JUST LIKE THAT.

We’re TRAPPED.

And there’s NO TURNING BACK.

ENTANGLEMENT

D&G do not DIRECTLY refer to the ENTANGLEMENT construct. But it’s ABSOLUTELY relevant to their work.

ENTANGLEMENT refers to the ways we become DEPENDENT on technology. It’s LIBERATING at first. But when we can no longer do what we used to do without it. We’re TRAPPED.

Think about the Internet and smartphones.

At first.

They were liberating.

Everything you WANT/NEED at your fingertips.

And now that we’re all dependent on the internet/phones.

And we can’t find our way across town without GOOGLE.

The INTERNET/PHONE is no longer liberating.

And just like THAT.

We’re CAPTURED/CONTROLLED by them.

Or rather, we’re captured/controlled by the mindless consumerism and the social media fueled self commodification they enable.

It’s a TRAP.

And…

We’re FUCKED!

D&G further argue that when desire is liberated from traditional constraints, it becomes a powerful force for creativity and transformation. HOWEVER, when DESIRE is LIBERATED in the service of CAPITALISM, FREEDOM and DESIRE become a PRISON. And the WORLD becomes TRANSFORMED into ONE BIG COMMODITY to be CONSUMED.

BODY W/O ORGANS

D&G introduce the concept of the "Body without Organs" (BwO), a state of being where desire flows freely without being organized or structured by external forces. The BwO is a central concept in their exploration of how to liberate desire from repressive systems.

D&G argues that schizophrenic psychosis is also a state of being where desire flows freely without being organized or structured by external forces. As such, schizoanalysis facilitates a more fluid and dynamic, less rigid way of being in, seeing and creating the world.

MICROPOLITICS

D&G emphasizes the importance of small-scale, everyday practices and interactions that shape social reality. What they term micropolitics.

D&G argue that social change must initially occur at the level of individual and small group collective desires and behaviors, and not just through large-scale political movements.

ANTI-OEDIPUS is a dense and complex text.

It challenges readers to rethink established notions of desire, power, and social organization.

And (as previously mentioned) it’s NO FUN AT ALL TO READ. At least for me it wasn’t.

But in the end.

I actually think it was WELL worth it.

I would reluctantly but willingly do it again.

I’m just EXTREMELY HAPPY that I don’t need to.

5/5 stars ⭐️