80
ANNE FABRE-LUCE
by Lacan alone_ The hierarchy within this group is very much oriented
toward research_ Containing "member analysts," "practicing member
analysts," and "ordinary members," it is a veritable college of analysts,
of whom the most well known are Serge Leclaire
(Psychanalyser, Demas–
quer le Reel,
published by Seuil), Clavereul, Mme Pankow, etc-
As for the fourth group, it broke with Lacan in 1969, under the
leadership of Mme Piera Aulagnier, over the question of "controls"
(contrBles),
which Lacan rather curiously calls "permits"
(passes)_
The
thought and practice of this group maintain their allegiance to Lacan
(see, for example, Mme Aulagnier's extraordinary study of female sex–
uality in
Desir et Perversion,
published by Seuil)_ The emphasis is placed
on the problem of language ("I
speak
there where I
am
not"), on the
barrier separating the signifier from what is signified, on the meto–
nymical and metaphorical axes of discourse, on the question of desire
and lack. This group also publishes ajournal, called
Topiques.
There is a fifth group to be mentioned, too, one which also grew
originally out of the school of Lacan. Called "Ie Labo," it is directed by
Anne-Lise Cohen, who is a Maoist.
It
represents the "red base" of
psychoanalysis, but at last word its activity was in the process of
disappearing.
It
is in direct opposition to this unusually rich field of possibilities
for psychoanalytic inquiry that one must place Gilles Deleuze and Felix
Guattari and their book
Capitalisme et Schizophrenie: L 'Anti-Oedipe
(Minuit). In this hefty volume - - which has sold as quickly and as well
as a "naughty" novel, and which comes down like a veritable bombshell
in the field of theory -- the authors engage in a violent attack on Freud
(as they also do in the latest issue -- Number 5 -- of the excellent
review called
Minuit,
in which they present their critique of Freud's
interpretation of "The Wolf-Man"): they dispute his Oedipal theory and
his account of the different areas of the psyche. For them, the uncon–
scious is not a theater but a factory, a place and an instrument of
production; it is neither structural (as in Lacan), nor figurative (Freud),
but machinelike, and -- most importantly -- it exists in direct relation
to the society, whether capitalist or not. Viewed in this perspective, the
Oedipal conception seems a long-time error which saps the productive
forces of the unconscious and imprisons the analyst and the analysand in
the Papa-Marna-Child circuit -- that is, in "farnilyism." What Deleuze
and Guattari propose is a "schizoanalysis" which recognizes the funda–
mental link uniting the living production of the "desiring machine" with
the body politic. The concept of representation must be replaced by that
of production (which is precisely what Jean Ricardou attempts in the
