Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 20:02:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Beasley-Murray <jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: fascist topology


A couple of questions, based on thoughts about D&G's analysis of fascism 
in _AOe_.

As far as I can see, they see the problem of fascism (particularly 
microfascism?) is that of the contradiction between preconscious 
investments of interest (which could even be revolutionary; and are at 
least expected to be progressive among the masses) and reactionary 
unconscious investments of desire. (cf., say, 105 and 350)

This then explains why the masses desired their own repression (clearly I 
leave out much of the analysis of the structuring of desire, but that's 
Ok for the moment, I think).

Three questions, then:

i. Why is this a contradiction?  I'm not sure it necessarily is for D&G, 
but then if not why such a big deal?  And if it *isn't*, what happens to 
the problem and/or the specific analysis of fascism?

ii. Why shouldn't desire desire its own repression?  Why is this a 
problem?  (My answer to this is that this is indeed the question they ask 
in _ATP_ when referring to the dangers of the line of flight.)

iii. Why are they using Freud's first topographical model, rather than 
his later one of id-ego-superego?  Doesn't the first model suggest 
something of an enlightenment teleology in which there are no qualitative 
difference, and everything can and should be brought to consciousness?

Bonus question: what is D&G's theory of interest?  Do they have one?  
(Again, my provisional answer is no.)

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Literature Program
Duke University
jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons

     ------------------