Psychoanalysis and Transversality: Texts and Interviews 1955-1971 (Semiotext

by Félix Guattari, Gilles Deleuze (Introduction)

Essays and articles that trace Guattari's intellectual and political development before Anti-Oedipus.

Originally published in French in 1972, Psychoanalysis and Transversality gathers all the articles that F'lix Guattari wrote between 1955 and 1971. It provides a fascinating account of his intellectual and political itinerary before Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1972), the ground-breaking book he wrote with Gilles Deleuze, propelled him to the forefront of contemporary French philosophy.

Guattari's background was unlike that of any of his peers. In 1953, with psychoanalyst Jean Oury, he founded the La Borde psychiatric clinic, which was based on the principle that one cannot treat psychotics without modifying the entire institutional context. For Guattari, the purpose of "institutional psychotherapy" was not just to cure psychotic patients, but also to learn with them a different relation to the world. A dissident in the French Communist Party and active in far-left politics (he participated in the May 1968 student rebellion), Guattari realized early on that it was possible to introduce analysis into political groups. Considered as open machines (subject-groups) rather than self-contained structures (subjugated groups), these subject-groups shunned hierarchy and vertical structures, developing transversally, rhizomatizing through other groups.

Psychoanalysis and Transversality collects twenty-four essays by Guattari, including his foundational 1964 article on transversality, and a superb introduction by Gilles Deleuze, "Three Group-Related Problems."

Genres: Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, Theory, Nonfiction, France, Psychology

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Pierre-Félix Guattari was a French militant, an institutional psychotherapist, philosopher, and semiotician; he founded both schizoanalysis and ecosophy. Guattari is best known for his intellectual collaborations with Gilles Deleuze, most notably Anti-Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1980), the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia.

Reviews

[Heronimo Gieronymus · Rating 4 out of 5]

It really would not be overstating that matter to say that Félix Guattari's collaborations w/ Gilles Deleuze (especially the two Capitalism and Schizophrenia books) are the primary foundational books of my life. Or were. The encounters I had with those books in my late teens and early twenties set a great deal in motion. I have read the bulk of Deluze's work. Deleuze means more to me than any other twentieth century thinker. By a good measure. Guattari's work has remained an avenue less explored for me. There is much less of it, is has traditionally been less readily available, and it has been significantly less lauded. This collection of essays (and two interviews) is a fine corrective. It illuminates in a couple ways. Primarily it looks at group psychology, institutionailty, and revolutionary praxis. Over more than a decade of reflection. It is common to look at Guattari in terms of "antipsychiatry." This is tremendously misleading. Of course, before Anti-Oedipus was published (and infuriated him) Lacan genuinely saw Guattari as a potential successor. Guattari was always genuinely invested in institutional psychiatry. And there is A LOT of fidelity to Lacan in Psychoanalysis and Transversality. Lacan is even significantly more fundamental than Marx to all revolutionary or radical discourse on display here. Guattari's break w/ Marxist-Leninist discourse here (critical and decisive), dwarfs any deviation he might demonstrate from Freud and Lacan. What really excites Guattari, of course, is desire, and its necessary role in any recommendable radical politics. The role desire plays in the formation of group subjectively (mediated unconsciously / within the imaginary) is the real core of his project. Why be interested in class struggle (no longer at all cleanly dialectical) without desire, madmen, and adventure?

[Jennifer Doyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is fantastic. Really great way to dive into his thinking/practice.

[Fabiana · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Society as a whole must be held responsible for what emerges from those places which offer a privileged chance to study moral and human values: prisons, concentration camps, barracks, psychiatric hospitals, etc. True anthropological research should propose the recovery of these regions, which are more or less “scotomized” from the social domain from a normative point of view, in order to reevaluate the meaning of society as creator of these “symptoms,” with the aim of reaching concepts and practices that can modify the existing situation.” (Pg 87)

"The production of signifiers in the universities is becoming more and more detached from society; this is particularly noticeable in literature and art. The products of genuine research are not very saleable, because they question the social order. The essence of mass consumption is to turn away from the truth, to avoid actually having to face an active agent, or desire, or eccentricity. In the end, students and academics reach the same position in relation to signifying production as mental patients. Neurosis and madness, as a basis of truth, are subject to permanent suppression." (Pg 313)

Against all principles, I am nothing but fervent to look for a cause. Desire? Labor? Language? What is the thing that alienates us from all other spheres? The Marxist conception of labor alienation permeates through all the other layers, of course, (from self/work/product/other etc.) but there is something more to it here.

The fear has always been in the unknown. It is why there is such a comfort in murder (symbolically and physically. Once the thing is dead, it can be dissected, figured out. This is all science sets out to do.) The beauty of the mind is that it cannot be devoured in the way the body can. It can be labeled, prescribed, subjected, etc. but only known so as far as it speaks or is seen. (The real danger in language+speech I mention above).

And so what does this do? Now there is a production of the unconscious, ascribing qualities to it (ie Libidinal/"Political"/Production of neuroses) and an exploitation of it. So much so it exits the realm of psychoanalysis and is e c o n o m i c a l. In the conventional sense where there is desire, there is some degree of economy (gain/expenditure, Thinking of Bataille). Its the most crucial point of the integration of leftist/May 68 thought here. The "social neurosis" that is a result of systematic oppression. The repeated failures of these movements (which I personally think is fucking hilarious if that is your justification against "revolution". The firm success of socialist/communist/whateverthefuck movements depends ON THE NEIGHBORING STATES WHICH ARE CAPITALIST. demanding autonomy from your funding, just aint gonna work unless everyone is on board. Nevertheless I am compelled to wish for the collapsing of all government, but thats a separate issue.)

Is eviscerating desire supposed to make us understand it? Beyond this, I just firmly believe that if it can be spoken about, it can be exploited. Once something is a historical problem (written/spoken about), it becomes a political problem, and thus economical. Switch the order of this equation and nothing changes. The true essence of transversality. History is war waged by other means.

The intersection of all the lines of flight is such a fucking dangerous and precarious point. The tenth circle of hell (and I am down there putting on a show).

[vr reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

do you like getting in fights with movement leftists? if so, this book is for you.

[Kaden · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many things I could say about this work, too many indeed. I'll focus on one that is particularly pertinent for our current historical situation: Guattari's Leninist concept of a finite analytic group (or subject groups). Guattari develops this concept from (I believe) Sartre. He distinguishes between two categories of groups: subject groups and subjugated groups. Neither of them are pure (by that I mean really existing groups vacillate between them) nor bad per se (both offer unique possibilities), they instead are formally opposed categories of two extremes of group dynamics/configurations/etc.

Subjugated groups consist of a relation of estrangement from a common cause, individuals are only unified by their separation in relation to this external/dominating object. This can provide the capability for internal reflection (the stage light is pointed towards yourself and your situation) but cannot enable much in the way of praxis. An example would be the common unity-in-seperation workers have in the assembly line (they aren't a class for themselves, but are only a class for other). In this dynamic, the sacred object becomes something of a transcendent law -- existing with or without the individual (e.g. workers are replaceable). This creates an immortality of the group, it exists despite its members.

On the other hand, subject groups are groups actively engaged in an analysis of their situation. They do not, like subjugated groups, simply ogle at their shared-in-atomization imaginary, but instead take it and actively analyze it: articulating it in the symbolic thus enabling it to be modified (and being able to be connected to history). The group itself can now question the individual imaginary which was previously grounded to the body's erogenous zones. The risk of the subject group (like the schizophrenic in AO) comes from its propensity to implode. The group is not designed to live past its task, but this also puts it at risk of collapsing too quickly. The prime task of subject groups are to interpret (not represent) desire and locate transversality -- simply put, who has the capability to effectuate change. This is exactly what Lenin's vanguard is: a self-abolishing group that raises the consciousness of the masses beyond social-democratic consciousness while simultaneously agitating and recognizing itself in the historical situation. The risks warned of are likewise the same concerns any vanguard must recognize: failing to communicate to the masses, recognize its own position, destroy itself, or outlive its duty (e.g. Stalinism).

The theoretical possibilities this concept opens is massive. Articulating group subjectivity in terms of desire is of utmost importance.

[Regn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really love this book. It’s probably Guattari’s least dense book and a fantastic introduction to his theory (and shows off Guattari the polemicist!). However, one thing to note about it is that it is his early work, so it professes some ideas that he would come to completely oppose, most notably the idea that the group and unconscious is “structured like a language”. All in all though, I definitely recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand Guattari a little bit better.

[Omar Abu Samra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A month of reading, worth every second

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 1 out of 5]

The politizacion of psychoanalysis should be politicizing psychoanalytic practiques, not shcizoanalysis.