Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:56:00 -0700 From: ron day <dayr-AT-beta.usfca.edu> Subject: Re: Guattari's Practical Schizoanalytic Work Gene (--and others--): Many thanks for the quick and very precise references in Anti-Oedipus. Would you read this further deterritorialization as a further critique of a macropolitics-micropolitics division? Do you think that the notion of "the group" would still be analytically viable after this, or would it attain a status like that of the individual (psychology) in AO ("The development of distinctions between group and individual fantasy shows sufficiently well, at last, that there is no individual fantasy" (AO 64))--at least at an 'ontological' level of analysis? Ron Eugene W. Holland wrote: The passage looks pretty clear to me, and I want to thank Unleash for the > precise reference. > > Guattari appears to me to be not so much rejecting the opposition between > subject-groups and subjected groups (from Sartre), but rather qualifying > the specific formulation Sartre gives of subject-groups. Guattari, I > think, wants to de-personalize them even further (not just de-oedipalize > them, which is what _Anti-Oedipus_ accomplishes). > > The lineage is very clear in the Anti-Oedipus, where D&G quote Sartre > directly on one occasion ("Sartre's analysis in _Critique de la raison > dialectique_ appears to us profoundly correct....." p.256), and refer to > his distinction (i.e. subject-groups vs subjected groups) on several other > important occasions (pp.64,277,348). But again, it seems to me very clear > that Guattari later abandonned Sartre's formulations regarding groups in > favor of "subjects and intances [or arrangements] of enunciation". > > Gene >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005