Talk:Anti-Oedipus

	This Books related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Too many images?

This article is good so far, though I'd like to see more references, especially on the quotes, but I think 6 images might be an overkill. What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't really know how rationalwiki works with its talk sections and communication. SShinx (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, the images are good. I'd just suggest to use op. cit. on the references. GeeJayK (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the images are for future things to be added, just so I can have them on there. And what is "op. cit."? I'm sorry again, I'm really passionate for the site and whatnot, but I'm just not very well versed. SShinx (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Op. cit. GeeJayK (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Mission?

Some of this is applicable to the RW mission.

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

But there seems to be quite a bit of general encyclopedic stuff. Or am I missing something?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally it is very encyclopedic, though that's more to make a basis for the critique of psychoanalysis and authoritarianism. Later on it is much more focused on critique. Though yes, it does feel encyclopedic, though admittedly, it's mostly because I'm just very into the material and don't really have much else to do (I'm still in high school). It wouldn't bother me shortening it or simplifying it at all, since I just like writing and if it doesn't serve the purpose of the site perfectly in its current form, so be it. The work was a valuable learning experience. I will make an attempt to conform it heavier to RW's standards, or at least, be on-topic more often. I hope you have at least enjoyed the work I have done so far :)SShinx (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the edits?

@Bongolian Out of curiosity, why were those edits reverted? They were good, and did away with some of the rank amateur "edits" that were previously in the article. Vee (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, the "introduction" is less of an introduction and more of an insult. Some of the new material should be ideally kept, while others should be removed or rewritten. Vee (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Vee The problems with the edit are: 1) Removed italics (all books have italic titles) 2) removed one citation, included no new citations 3) claims that it "remains useful and praiseworthy" (without evidence) despite not disputing that it is unfalsifiable social science. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC) I put my comment in the wrong section. Bongolian (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that if commenting on this text requires familiarity with "numerous other philosophical and literary figures," including all of those listed, we likely shouldn't have an article on it, since it is unlikely that there will ever be an appreciable number of editors here who are so familiar, and it will consequently be effectively impossible to evaluate the veracity of the article's claims. This is especially concerning given that the article appears to have been written largely by a single editor, and contains many sections without sources. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I know of Youtubers who have made introductory videos to the philosophy of Anti-Oedipus, so it's not impossible. Also see this: "On second thought, the "introduction" is less of an introduction and more of an insult. Some of the new material should be ideally kept, while others should be removed or rewritten." Vee (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The introduction does have a condescending tone. But it's true that Deleuze and Guattari worked in a tradition with quite a lot of hermeneutics, and drew on the work of figures like Lacan, so I would be surprised if it were possible to get very far into the details without at least some familiarity with some fairly obscure thinkers. If you can attest to the reliability of the Youtubers you're referring to, and if they provide sufficient detail to allow evaluation of the article's claims, great. Now, more to the point of the thread, some problems with the new edits are, (i) the tone is condescending and polemical, (ii) they engage in editorializing, (iii) they make reference to ideas that are obscure and unexplained (notably, the distinction between Royal and Minor Science), which makes the article less accessible. I'll also suggest that to refute the claim that the work is anti-science by framing the work as a critique of (power in) a capitalist society in which science's position is unchallenged, is not compelling. It suggests that the position of science should be challenged, which is compatible with being anti-science. Something more specific needs to be said, probably enough so that the issue should not be discussed in the introduction. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I won't pretend to have read Anti-Oedipus or even most of the required reading: "Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Baruch Spinoza, Sigmund Freud, and Jacques Lacan, amongst numerous other philosophical and literary figures, such as George Bataille." That doesn't trouble me though. I am glad to see editors challenge themselves as well as our readers. However, consider the short section

" Impact and Criticism of Anti-Oedipus:"

"When Anti-Oedipus was first published, it was a wildly controversial and scandalous book. It received tons of press coverage and sold out in 3 days. [9]"

So far, I am not impressed that the book accomplished anything or is worth pursuing. If you must work on this article I would start by offering an explanation of why anyone should read it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried to read A Thousand Plateaus four oe five years ago. I'll never make this mistake again. The fact that Deleuze doesn't use paragraphs makes it even more incomprehensible for me. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that a good compromise would be to remove the article and link to the Wikipedia article, this article has a lot of questionable and unsourced material. Just because you don't personally understand the content doesn't really excuse the quality of the article.--Pfelix (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification

Can an explanation be provided for those of us who find the subject opaque? I get that one has to have familiarity with Kant et al but the rest seems 'slightly opaque' (and possibly generated with this program. Anna Livia (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced/Opinionated Aspects of the Article ("Schizophrenia")

Reviewing the "Schizophrenia" section I think some of the content is highly opinionated and seems largely unsourced (outside of some quotations from AO), this article comes off as two opposing writers who have very different opinions of the book clashing in different sections. I think overall we should aim for representing what public literature, either online or published, on the subject, since that is a more honest representation of the subject than the article authors' opinion.

There is some criticism from disability studies that may be worth bringing up on the subject of Schizophrenia and Deleuze/Guattari - I'm thinking of a specific paper from the 5th edition of the Disability Studies Reader, edited by Lennard Davis. The article title eludes me but it's about the "postmodernists" and how they appropriated schizophrenia as a subject throughout their work. I have some issues personally with this source but it's worth at least bringing up that this perspective exists and can be researched. If this is going to be brought up though it's also important to bring up how their work influenced disability studies as well.

Another problem that I've heard through the grapevine but haven't been able to source is the issue that Félix would work directly with schizophrenia and other conditions on a daily basis, while Gilles would work with students and teaching his radical ideas - this lead to students appropriating schizophrenia. This would explain why a lot of secondary sources have a much poorer understanding of schizophrenia than DG has. There is a problem among some non-academic secondary literature that romanticizes schizophrenia as a possible "escape" from capital as well, which is a problem that the book's reception has been dealing with since it was first published (Guattari mentions this extensively in interviews).

A good source I think also to better understand AO and Schizophrenia would be the Anti-Oedipus Papers, which are the notes that Guattari sent to Deleuze when writing the book. Also, for the history of the radical psychiatry movement that inspired Guattari's work, "Institutional Psychotherapy", check out Camille Robcis's Disalienation, it goes over the history of La Borde and other institutions as well as a lot about the history of anti-psychiatry.

Even though D&G want to represent an abstract interpretation of schizophrenia (and strictly as a process), they are still often lambasted for their poor understanding of schizophrenia as an illness, not to mention their dehumanization of people who happen to have the condition in Anti-Oedipus.

Who is saying this? This section is unsourced. Schizophrenia is a complex illness that at the time was understood through multiple disciplines. I don't think Guattari's understanding of schizophrenia was poor for the time. I mean, we are talking about 1972, who exactly had a good understanding of schizophrenia back then in comparison to now. It's true they're describing a process but it's a process that was initially observed in schizophrenic patients.

Deleuze and Guattari define the schizophrenic as a non-identity, a subhuman, an unsociable intensity that doesn't operate by any kind of internal or consistent logic. They also assert that schizophrenics are beyond ideology (at least, social ideology), and exist "before the man-nature dichotomy". The idea of a split or a constantly splitting identity is something observed within schizophrenics, but the definition has changed over time with our understanding of the illness and the book somewhat generalized all schizophrenia into a few traits.

This comes directly after saying that what Deleuze and Guattari are talking about is not necessarily clinical schizophrenia! Anti-Oedipus isn't a diagnostic book, if anything it's intended to be the opposite! Also, where do they call schizophrenics "subhuman"? What? Deleuze had issues with schizophrenics in person but Guattari in a lot of interviews/papers describes the schizophrenic condition as a kind of tragedy. Schizophrenia is "Beyond ideology" because they are deterritorialized, there is no place that the ideology can "go". That doesn't mean that there can't be clinical schizophrenics with an ideology and it doesn't mean that schizophrenics are not human.

Even though their conception of schizophrenia and ontology of machines seem to line up, D&G still want to reinforce the idea that they are not promoting nor delegitimizing the harms that schizophrenia causes. Schizophrenic delirium is debilitating and leaves the subject completely unsocialized.

They AGREE with this assessment of schizophrenic people! I think a good way to explain what D&G saw in schizophrenic people, especially G, was that because they were so "deterritorialized", they could be reshaped into anything. When Guattari worked with patients at La Borde he saw that they developed new potentials never before seen because of exposure to different ways of life. That didn't necessarily mean these people were "cured" but they found new ways of life that could suit them. There was a lot of political potential in a process that can break down structures and reform them again. That's what they were interested in.

There have been some parallels drawn between the Nietzschean "Übermensch" and the Guattarodeleuzian conception of schizophrenia. For context, second to Spinoza Deleuze's most misread historical philosopher would probably have been Nietzsche. The Übermensch's overcoming of humanity through the rejection of nihilism has some resemblance to the ideas of the boundary-crossing, territory-destroying schizophrenic who exists outside of the dogma of society. Having any form of mental illness being represented in a similar way to that of how Nietzsche represents the "superman" is going to cause some problems.

CITATION NEEDED. What? Who is going around saying that schizophrenia is the same thing as the Übermensch?

Deleuze and Guattari have a way of coming up with concepts that is sometimes regarded as distinct from all other philosophers. They don't care about pre-existing semantic boundaries and normalities when creating concepts. That's why, without even batting an eye, they assume license to use the word schizophrenia in such a peculiar (and perhaps offensive) way. D&G believe that ideas can be drawn from anywhere and that it's possible to take the positive parts of something useful and leave the rest, no matter what it is (in this case, schizophrenia). They see the wild creativity and boundary-crossing of schizophrenia as incredibly useful and even see schizophrenic desire as intrinsic to the human unconscious. Though, in taking the good, they also have to leave the bad. They leave the perceived uncontrollable and unsociable nature of the schizophrenic to the wayside and see nothing wrong with that. After all, with a "machinic" world view, it's very easy to take some machines and leave others behind. You're not taking the whole schizophrenic, just considering the schizophrenic-desire-model-machine and leaving the rest.

This whole section comes off as author opinion and is also completely unsourced.

I'll be making some subtle edits but I'm not sure how to preserve the content of this section, I think most of it will require an entire rewrite.

--Pfelix (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the page,[1] you'll see that User:SShinx put in almost all of the initial work. SShinx seemed to be more-or-less credulous about the book. Later editors, myself included, have been more skeptical, but SShinx may have been the only editor to have read the book. By all means, take out anything that cannot be sourced and fix anything that seems credulous. Bongolian (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. Can I recommend the page for deletion? After thinking about it, I think it would be better to just link to the original Wikipedia article, because this article doesn't explain much at all and has a LOT of misinformation. Reactions should probably go on a blog or newsletter or something. My editing work is probably better used on the postmodernism pages directly anyways because that has a lot more direct interaction with skeptics. --Pfelix (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to put it up for a vote for deletion. You can find the instructions for the deletion procedure here: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion. I'm not sure that the Wikipedia article is sufficiently critical of the book, and not having read it, it's difficult for me to make an assessment. Bongolian (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice on deletion, I'll submit it after writing this. FYI, for future reference, I think if you're interested in criticism of the book, which would be very helpful to have as a resource online, you should rely on academic, traceable sources instead of personal opinion of the wiki authors, this way we know it's more than just the opinion of the wiki authors - this may be part of the reason why the Wikipedia article is not as critical as you'd like. I'm also personally interested in understanding the interaction between postmodernism and science and its rocky history, especially before the 1990s when everything exploded - so not having any sources doesn't just look bad but can interfere with research. Chomsky, the Sokal Affair and its effects seems to dominate in citations here, all leading back to the same place, and to be blunt - the affair kinda sucks as a critique (my opinion, admittedly). There has definitely been more discussion on the subject than that though. I'll try to fetch that article from the Disability Studies journal but I think the majority of this section needs to be pitched. Part of the problem with the critique in this article/talk page is that it doesn't seem like it understands the material in many cases such as with this part of the article from people who don't seem to have the appropriate background to make that call (how much do the authors of the wiki seriously know about schizophrenia? Do any of them work in a mental hospital or intensive outpatient?). SShinx is not the best representative of the article either because I've seen numerous historical mistakes scattered through it that might be attributed to them. There are definitely critiques of Anti-Oedipus/DG out there (check out Fascism of the Potato if you don't believe me! And of course Zizek's Organs without Bodies). The critique is also really disorganized. So yeah, at the very least I think it would benefit from just pitching the current article and posting a basic bullet list or something to work with based on the critiques that people have gathered, since having a list of critical reviews is important. --Pfelix (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)