Let’s drop all masks: Nietzsche galore!
To answer the molecular questions 2 and 3 - respectively about a possible misquotation and the meaning of the phrase “we haven't seen anything yet” - we need to explain the notion of flow and clarify the relationship between desire, libido and unconscious. With «flow» Deleuze and Guattari mean «process»: “This process is what we call a flow. But, again, flow is an everyday, unqualified notion that we needed. It can be a flow of words, a flow of ideas, a flow of shit, a flow of money. It can be a financial mechanism or a schizophrenic machine: it surpasses all duality” (DI, 218); as far as the relationship between desire, libido and unconscious is concerned Deleuze describes their origin as such: “Guattari early on had the intuition that the unconscious is directly related to a whole social field, both economic and political, rather than the mythical and familial grid traditionally deployed by psychoanalysis. It is indeed a question of libido as such, as the essence of desire and sexuality: but now it invests and disinvests flows of every kind as they trickle through the social field, and it effects cuts in these flows, stoppages, leaks, and retentions. To be sure, it does not operate in a manifest way, as do the objective interests of consciousness or the chains of historical causality. It deploys a latent desire coextensive with the social field, entailing ruptures in causality and the emergence of singularities, sticking points as well as leaks” (DI, 193)
Deleuze consciously chooses to side with
Nietzsche and uses him against Marx and
Freud. According to Deleuze, capitalism is
based on flows but what really matter is
the organization of power which he defines
as the unity of desire and the economic
infrastructure (DI, 262, 263). Here lies
the essential criticism to the orthodox
marxism and its ideological pretensions
to put the desire-phenomenon on the
superstructure. The Party itself is criticized
by the two philosophers who see it as the
new organization for a repressive power
(DI, 263) refusing its definition of avant-
garde external mechanism of synthesis
classified as such since Lenin times. (ID,
266). There is a double refusal of, on one
hand, the traditional division between
infrastructure and superstructure as
theorized by Marx, where the economic
structure expresses the relations of
production; and on the other, of the Leninist
theory of the Party seen as proletarian
guide and «political class consciousness»
which in other words is the refusal of an
analytic machine external to the working
class and the revolutionary processd. This
could be the reason why it is exactly in
the accelerationist passage that we meet
the «conceptual persona» of Nietzsche;
according to Deleuze and Guattari in fact
Nietzsche may be seen as the master of
the generalized disintegration of codes.
Considering the triad Marx, Freud and
Nietzsche as the contemporary western
thought fathers, we can read a clear
rejection of the first two in Deleuze and
Guattari’s words: “... for our part, we prefer
not to participate in any effort consistent
with a Freudo-Marxist perspective. And
this for two reasons. The first is that, in
the end, a Freudo-Marxist effort proceeds
in general from a return to origins, or more specifically to the sacred texts: the sacred
texts of Freud, the sacred texts of Marx.
Our point of departure must be completely
different: we refer not to sacred texts
that must be, to a greater or lesser extent,
interpreted, but to the situation as is, the
situation of the bureaucratic apparatus
in psychoanalysis, which is an effort to
subvert these apparatuses.(...) Secondly,
what separates us from any Freudo-Marxist
effort is that such projects seek primarily to
reconcile two economies: political economy
and libidinal or desiring economy. (...) Our
point of view is on the contrary that there
is but one economy and that the problem
of a real anti-psychoanalytical analysis [a
synonym of schizoanalysis that Deleuze
and Guattari started using after the Anti-
Œdipus] is to show how unconscious desire
invests the forms of this economy. It is
economy itself that is political economy
and desiring economy.” (ID, 275) After
a few months from the release of the
volume Anti-Œdipus, at the conference
in Cerisy-la-Salle (July 1972), entitled
«Nietzsche aujourd’hui?» in his speech
Nomadic Thought Deleuze asserts that
“faced with the way in which our societies
come uncoded, codes leaking away on every
side, Nietzsche does not try to perform a
re-coding.” (ID, 253) and clearly explains his
siding with Nietzsche: “(...) if one examines
not the letter of Marx or Freud, but the
becoming of Marxism and the becoming
of Freudianism, we see, paradoxically,
Marxists and Freudians engaged in an
attempt to recode Marx and Freud: in the
case of Marxism, you have a re-coding by
the State ("the State has made you ill, the
State will cure you" — this cannot be the
same State); and in the case of Freudianism,
you have a re-coding by the family (you fall
ill from the family and recover through the
family — this is not the same family). What at
the horizon of our culture in fact constitutes
Marxism and psychoanalysis as those two
fundamental bureaucracies, the one public,
the other private, is their effort to recode
as best they can precisely that which on the
horizon ceaselessly tends to come uncoded.
This is not at all what Nietzsche is about.
His problem is elsewhere. For Nietzsche, it
is about getting something through in every
past, present, and future code, something
which does not and will not let itself be re-
coded.” (ID, 252). This «something» that
is about getting something but will not let
itself be re-coded is the expression of the
unconscious produced by the primary
pulsion of the individual.
CLICK HERE 2 READ MORE
CLICK HERE 2 READ MORE
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento