Guattari Explains the AO to Jean Oury

Nov 5, 1971
Roundtrip to Geneva with [Jean] Oury [colleague, mentor, and Director of the La Borde Clinic Guattari worked at] to see a film by the Swiss TV on La Borde.  Totally boring.  Long conversation.  The book [Anti-Oedipus]?  I tried to sketch it out for him, insisting on the distinction between representation and production: the migration of Oedipus, the erection of a signifying order correlative to the Urstaat.  The need to hang analysis up on history and not grant fantasies and dreams the same function as myth or theater.  Conflict with Lacan can be avoided.  It will all depend on his attitude.  There’s no turning back now.  At first, there was not hostility toward Lacanism.  It was the logic of our development that lead us to emphasize the dangers of an a-historic interpretation of the signifier that promotes a dualist subjectivity and as unconscious level of representation.  It’s at the end of his analysis of the representation of desire that Lacan found the _object a_, the residual object.  We started from the other end, production and desiring machines, and found all our figures of representation on the way.  A well-intentionted neutrality.  Many of the themes had already been raised at the G.T.P.S.I. [Work Group on Institutional Psychotherapy and Sociotherapy], especially what made psychoanalysis into a sub-set of institutional analysis — here, schizo-analysis, i.e. starting from schizophrenia to understand familialist neuroses.  Not the other way around.

-The Anti-Oedipus Papers, 349-50

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s