Criticisms of Anti-Oedipus

Deleuze and Guattaris Anti-Oedipus is a successful attempt to accommodate Freudian psychoanalysis to the modern times. Authors individual view on the reality is reasoned by his own the inexplicably obtuse style of the work. In general, the book suggests that Deleuze and Guattari had their own specific view on the reality.  I would go so far as to say that the authors approached the book from their own particular angle.

When to summarize the major purpose of the book I can say that it is aimed at dismantling and re-writing Freudian theory. In addition, the book presents the reader with  an in-depth  critique of psychoanalysis.

The authors of the book formulate an introduction to schizoanalysis in the form of a virtually delirious style-a style. This style is laced with whole sets of metaphors and flights of surrealistic imagery.
The Anti-Oedipus is a kind of a structural analysis of the reality. In the course of this analysis, the Anti-Oedipus may show the tendency to give reader a chance to delve deeply into
a kind of allegorical display of the major processes in the world. A particular focus of the book is to give presenting the reader with a general picture of our society.

 Deleuze and Guattari have their own idea of capitalism and its production forces. The book primarily deals with such people as Marx, Nietzsche, Freud. After reading the book I came to the conclusion that Anti-Oedipus often cannibalizes the terms that have been present in the book. As a result, the terms are translated into the special language known as the language of the Anti-Oedipus. In general, Anti-Oedipus absorbed a great number of important terms. Many of these terms absorbed new meaning in the cause of their further analysis.

The author of the book conducts a conceptual analysis of the issue. In order to make this analysis the author presents the reader with his own understanding of psychoanalytical terms that are transplanted and accommodated to the needs of the current society.  Along with that, the author combines the terms into a single whole, thus making a synthesis of the major ideas presented in the book.

The choice of writing also associates with the major techniques that are present in the book. This mode of thoughts representation signals clearly that the authors of the book were trying to obtain something new. The major research implication is that Anti-Oedipus is more than a simple work. In fact the book is an example of a carefully constructed and executed research into the main issues of the present day.
Deleuze and Guattaris allegorical enactment of such psychological notions as paranoia and schizophrenia is a clear indication of the fact that the authors were planning to make the allegorical analysis of the key issues of the present day.

Criticisms of Anti-Oedipus had a place in the contemporary thought and the contemporary world. The idea has been covered by Deleuze and Guattari. These two people were charged with being unable to account adequately for political situations that took place in then society. Many authors that that analyzed Anti-Oedipus took a defensive position in reference to some of the concepts presented in Anti-Oedipus.

To conclude, postmodern discourse has a negative attitude to such important issues as the hermetic self-reference. Instead, we can see the prevalence of an outside reference. This references become the major feature of the late postmodern thought. The use of the external reference is not occasional as it typically aims at achieving the dramatizing effect on the people. In the cause of this analysis the author often makes a reference to himself and his own thoughts. The open dramatization often refers to the numerous attempts and difficulties that can be encountered in the course of text analysis.

When to give a general evaluation of The Anti-Oedipus I can say that this work is definitely written with the aim of making the summary of the major events presented in the book. The book makes it possible for the reader to trace the major tendencies of modern thought.

In the course of their research, Deleuze and Guattari present the reader with the three basic arguments against psychoanalysis. This analysis is primarily concerned with the need to introduce an important shift of perspectives. In general, the main feature of psychoanalytical thought is that it flatly rejects the major slogans upon which the modern psychoanalysis is based.

Deleuze and Guattaris primary objective is aimed at specifying the logic of the unconscious. This logic is often described in Kants terms.  But most important for the schizo- analytic critique of psychoanalysis is that this critique is primarily based on the logic of the unconscious. As a result, Deleuze and Guattari show the tendency to reject and move beyond in Klein. Finally, the primary objective of Deleuze and Guattaris research is to give a proper analysis of representation system. To analyze this system, Deleuze and Guattari are introducing their own set of terms such as authentic, schizophrenic and etc.

Uian Buchanans Deleuze and Guattari Anti-Oedipus is an example of one of the best critical assessments made by the famous authors. According to Buchanan, Deleuze and Guattari seek to establish the horizon of thought which must be the horizon of desiring-production itself.

Deleuze and Guattaris research starts with arising a whole set of questions related of human sexuality. The authors of the book goes so far as to raise a whole set of the major philosophical questions  related to how desire works and what it can do to human psyche.

Buchanans primary objective is to analyze the series of opening sentences of Anti-Oedipus  It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts when to delve deeply into the writing of Deleuze and Guattari it is evident that this study opens the horizon of thought. The other important feature of the book is that it is able to encounter desire as being at work everywhere.
Deleuze and Guattari research had a number of its important features. First of all the researchers had no intention to situate thought. Deleuze and Guattari give the following explanation to their unwillingness to situate thought at any particular place thought can be situated or accounted for in terms of a historical and cultural context.

Deleuze and Guattari research is attached to making an analysis of numerous rather important issues. Consequently, a conclusion can be made that the book is attached to a number of local affairs. The book has its specific conception of time and work. In this sense the book belongs to one of the greatest masterpieces of its time.

In addition to that, the book has its own specific conception of time that is viewed by the book authors as a kind of a synthesis of both non-linear and non-sequential forces. It seems that the authors of the book do not pay any attention to the organization of society. No matter local or familial, human society seems not to be opened onto all the names of history.

The relevance of Anti-Oedipus has been frequently questioned by many critiques. It seems that the idea that were presented in the book must be strengthened relying on the most recent of its moments or events that were described in the book. In general, the primary aim of Anti-Oedipus is not to celebrate the ability of desire, but to explore some bigger and more important concepts. In addition to that, Deleuze and Guattari are concerned with strategic questions such as what are the roots of revolution and what are the possible ways to betray the principles of the revolution. These are just the few examples of the questions that were posed before the researchers.

Buchanan skillfully captures Deleuze and Guattaris criticism of the issue. In addition he traces the major contribution these people did into the development modern thought. Of parti
 to show his major contribution to their thought (27f). Buchanan then sums up their disagreement with psychoanalysis as The difference between these two ways of approaching the unconscious (as reservoir of repressed thought and fantasies or as a productive process which gives rise to machines) (34). In this way the nature of desire as production itself and as immanent to the social is belatedly brought to the forefront. Yet one further move is missing at this stage. This is the question of the matter or materials of desire. These are partial objects and because these are not introduced yet we do not feel the full force of desiring-production. We need to be brought to see that desiring-production is not about the transcendence of material situations by flows. Buchanan emphasises the political and historical content (35) of desiring-production but is this material or ideal I would argue that Deleuze and Guattari first of all present the immanence of desire and matter. They re-think these two notions through each other.


Post a Comment