Anti-Oedipus: Metaphysics and method

Context

This article is a philosophical reflection on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's critique of psychoanalysis and its relation to clinical practice. It draws on Guattari's clinical practice at La Borde as well as his philosophical collaboration with Deleuze, particularly their co-authored work Anti-Oedipus. First published in 1972, the book was written in the wake of the May, 1968 upheavels in France and focuses, in particular, on the interconnection between psychoanalysis and capitalism. The author is a philosopher working at the intersection of philosophical history and politics from within a Deleuzian framework. While Anti-Oedipus was seen as the liberatory, theoretical underpinning for some political movements in Europe and South America, it has also been deployed by Accelerationist theorists to intensify capitalist hegemony. Later works by Deleuze and Guattari, such as A Thousand Plateaus, counsel more prudence. This shift in tone has raised interpretive issues, as well as issues of praxis. Thus, while it remains clear that Deleuze and Guattari are arguing for liberation and the creation of the new throughout their work, the means of pursuing this remain underdetermined.

Objectives

This article has two primary objectives. This first objective is to show that Deleuze and Guattari's critique of Oedipus arises out of Guattari's clinical practice. This critique of Oedipus is in line with Deleuze's critique of the history of philosophy and necessitates the creation of a new metaphysics to ground not only clinical practice but thought in general. The second objective is to show what method Deleuze and Guattari propose for replacing psychoanalysis. A method they call “schizoanalysis.”

Method

Qualitative. A single case study is used as an illustration and framework to organize the explication of Deleuze and Guattari's argument in Anti-Oedipus.

Results

The critique of psychoanalysis creates space for a new, liberatory praxis. The fundamental principles of schizoanalysis are outlined.

Interpretations

The primary limitation of this study is that it is focused entirely on theoretical foundations. Future work would need to incorporate an analysis of empirical data, not only in relation to the history of La Borde Clinic and its outposts but also of current therapeutic regimes.