Anti-Oedipus

     Deleuze and Guattari in this essay observe and attempt to investigate the human unconscious with both Freudian and Marxian tools. They are conspicuously aware that Freudian discussion of oedipal desire (libidinal desire) and schizophrenic analysis is faulty and aim at extending human unconscious beyond subjective and familial territory to the society. They believe that desires are not libidinal nor familial only, they are social.
Freud says that desire are produced from the “lack” (unfullfillment) but Deleuze and Guattari invalidated the oedipal psycho-analysis and analyze human unconscious as anti-ocsipus. Their theory challenges the presupposition about society and politics, the psyche and the self, the knowledge and the representation. Desire according to them unlike frcud is a process always involved in production. It is related with socio-political and economic issues, it is reciprocal with the production outside.
     Unlike Freudian psycho-analysis, schizophrenia is an essential inherent part of human unconscious, it is not neurotu but the universal producer of desire. As desire is like a product in a factor, schizophrenia is a machine, so schizophrenia produces desire. The desire-producing machine is involved in all human processes.
     We are living in the age of fragmentation and do not believe in the possibility of the unity of those fragments. As society is multiple our desires can not be gathered into unity because we do not believe in a primordial society. We are now in the eva of late capitalism and now the more we are exposed to the different circumstances of the society, the more our desires get sprouted. So social objects unquestionable have a sufficient charges to blow up Oedipus and to demolish the ridiculous claim to represent the unconscious (id, ego, superego) or Mummy, Daddy and me to focus the entire production desire. Deleuze and Guattari here provide the anti-oedipal nature of the production of desire. The writers take the statement of D.H. Lawrence to enhance their proposition-Freud psycho analysis was shutting sexuality up in a bizarre sort of box painted with bourgeoisie motive in a kind of rather repugnant artificial triangle, making it private theatre rather than a fantastic factory of nature and production. Freudian narrow vision of psycho analysis has totally ignored society and production. They say that we fail to understand the production of the fail to understand by boxing the life of child up with Oedipus complex, making familial relationship to the universal meditation of childhood. Freudian psycho-analysis has really suffocated the production and our inner sense of creativity.
     Speaking in nuts hell, the crux of the essay ‘Anti-Oedipus’ is that desire is a process involves in productions and we made mistake when we let desire to come out as if it belongs to psychic economy of individual alone. The self is already the product of repression and denial and desire is reciprocal and dialectical. Schizophrenia is a result of fragmentation without oedipal reintegration, it is a process of becoming not of being. When desire is taken out of psychic domain to the social domain, there remains nothings but schizophrenic apparatus. We are machine controlled by desires, which are controlled by capitalism, co modification or personality therefore changes along with the change in capitalistic traditional because we are simply consumer-beings.
Some terminologies related with the essay
1. Schizophrenia: It is in the view of Deleuze and Guattari desire producing machine which is inhibited in human unconscious not a mental disorder or neurotic problem. The free-flowing relatively unfixed form of desire is Schizophrenia. One of the principal aims of Schizoanalysis is to free Schizophrenia desire from the nuclear family and from the oedipal representation of desire advocated by psychoanalysis. Its function is to destroy the illusion of ego, the puppet of superego and the guilt, law and castration.
2. Territorialization: It desire to valorize certain organs and objects at the expense of others. It is a charging infant’s organ with the compounding objects with erotic energy and value.
3. Reterritorialization: Dream which restructure our suppressed desire of the unconscious or it is a desire reattached into new made of production.
4. Detereitorialization: The process of Freeing desire from established organs and objects. Deleuze and Guattari deterritorialize the lacanian or Freudian territorialization.

Adorno and Horkheimer According to Adorno and Horkheimer, individuals are becoming subservient to the absolute power of capitalism in this age of mechanical reproduction. In this age, we are losing our subjectivity and we are all the time judged by the market value exchanged system which makes different between appearance and reality. Read More...

Levi-Strauss Levi-Strauss is a sociologist, anthropologist and structuralists. As a structuralists, he sees structure in everything. In this essay he basically takes about structure of myth. He says that myth has internal and external structure. Regarding the myth there are different opinions. Read More...

Jugen Habermas Modernity is rooted in the development of Enlightenment. Habermas talks of Max Weber’s separation of religion and metaphysics into three independent spheres. Science, morality and art. This division, Habermas says, ultimately gave space to three dimensions of culture, truth, morality and beauty, knowledge, justice and taste. Read More...

Jacques Derrida Difference has the sense of difference (S) as well as delay and deferral (detainment, hold up, wait). It seems the word difference were a fusion of difference and the French verb differ which can mean to differ as well as to defer and delay. Derrida accepts the sussurean idea of language as a system of difference but extends the principal to its ultimate consequences. Read More...

George Luckacs In this essay, Lukacs has darted his criticism to the bourgeois concept of modernism which has forgotten man and society and given focus to the form rather than content. The so-called Russian formalist did not care about content, only gave emphasis to the from. Lukacs says that content determines form and there is no content of which man himself in not the focal point. Read More...