Take the 2-minute tour ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the opening chapter "Desiring Machines" of Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus (the first volume of Capitalism & Schizophrenia) the authors write:

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats... What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines-real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections.

In the introduction Mark Seem writes:

[I]t would be an error to view Anti-Oedipus as yet another attempt at a Freud/Marx synthesis. For such an attempt always treats political economy (the flows of capital and interest) and the economy of the libido (the flows of desire) as two separate economies

As a preliminary reading of this passage should I take it that it is machines that form the psyche? (Is the id made concrete as machines?)

share|improve this question
    
Just in passing: Freud uses un-technical language for what we call the id -- it's just "it" in German, as I understand anyway. (Also: here's some of Freud's own language around the id: "contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out.... There is nothing in the id that could be compared with negation ... nothing in the id which corresponds to the idea of time") –  Joseph Weissman Feb 24 '13 at 16:49
    
(Have tried to make some small "focusing" edits -- please feel free to rollback or develop further!) –  Joseph Weissman Feb 24 '13 at 20:22
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

A short answer would i think be that he doesn't ..

It is the Id made concrete as Machines? Of course this militates against Seems warning, not to take it as a synthesis of Marx & Freud, but he represents this as two separate juxtaposed economies of flows - the libidinal & economic - whereas Deleuze appears to be explicitly merging the two together here.

The id is a notion approached from the perspective which D+G formed by their synthesis of Marxist production and Nietzsche's theory of forces. Deleuze isn't reformulating Freud's notion of id, AE is a critique of Freud's model of the unconscious, whose conclusion is rejection of the Freudian model of the unconscious (with it's focus on lack, etc.) in favor of an unconscious conceived as a purely positive, productive and machinic constellation of forces. For a great explanation of AE i recommend Michael Hardt's notes. The most complete formulation of Deleuze's theory of the unconscious can be found in his book on Leopold von von Sacher-Masoch. See also his discussion of 'larval selves' and his notion of the 'passive syntheses of time' in chapters 2 and 3 in Difference and Repetition.

share|improve this answer
    
Isn't the focus on lack the Lacanian view rather than Freud? Or did Lacan lift it from Freud? And where can I find Nietszches theory of forces? –  Mozibur Ullah Mar 3 '13 at 22:12
    
So in short, Deleuze is using the Id as a metonym for the unconcious, which he makes over as a machine? –  Mozibur Ullah Mar 3 '13 at 22:57
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.