Another week of "where to start." Very random - lots of thoughts, too little time to make any of them make sense.Herzog - and oh boy, Reich. Interesting guy. Grateful to him for the term "ideological befogging" and this gem, paraphrased by Herzog, "his conviction that it was above all parental prevention of child masturbation that prepared people for being obedient citizens and workers..." I mean, he's not wrong, but also, can we stop making everything about child masturbation? I, like Deleuze and Guattari, am very tired of this trope and the idea that everything comes back to the aggressively sexual Id. On that note, Herzog articulates the Deleuttarian Id as the desiring-machine, a combination of the social-machine and organic-machine, and I found myself wondering, in a painfully Freudian way, what machinic systems would constitute the corresponding superego and ego? Or would they argue against the necessity of that triangle, as well? Herzog also desciribes the "demarcating categories of existence: money and political arrangements to one side, more intimate longinings to the other." And, sure, yes, these are the traditional boxes and everyone present (I assume) agrees that we need a paradigmatic both/and shift here - but I take issue with Herzog's assessment of money and politics as not intimate or less intimate, which reproduces the conceptual claims at stake in her analysis. I doubt she would agree with the distinction herself, if called to argue it, so I was struck by the way she framed them, even as part of a sardonic comment on the distinction itself. "we are all little groups [nous sommes tous des groupuscules]" - Guattari, what a delightful image. Little rhizomatic groups spreading and circling and weaving in and out with other little rhizomatic groups, complex at every level, negating the idea of a unified "true self".I felt heavily struck by the juxtaposition of health language between Winnicott and Deleuttaurian discourse within the first few paragraphs of Kellond's article. While A Thousand Plateaus and Anti-Oedipus are staunchly opposed to the (current form of) pathologization of the human condition, Winnicott's stance is heavily rooted in the idea of health and sickness, a healthy society versus a sick society, a healthy practice of parenting versus an unhealthy one. The further conflation of health with creativity and sickness with stagnation contributes to a continued dialogue of not only heteropatriarchal and ableist discourse, but of a philosophical hierarchy which seems to prioritize difference and ingenuity, while the backbone of Winnicott's ideology seems to advocate for stability and interdependence. Kellond's article was practically dizzying but obviously necessary, since Winnicott's work seems to have been used all across the board in both the establishment of counter-culture and the propagation of traditionalism. A rarity for me - I don't think I could extrapolate his stance on anything based on the back and forth. I want to like him, sometimes, but also no, not at all, but I understand some of his vision, and also it is extremely reductive, and maybe indicative of an internal conflict? But a subconscious one, because he doesn't seem self-aware enough to recognize whatever non-normative personality is running around in the back of his head, an auto-oppressive sublimation.As for Anti-Oedipus...we know I have strong feelings. I essentially underlined the entire chapter. Looking forward to hearing other's responses more than my own.
Artifact
Analytic (Question)
Everyone can view this content
On