Introduction

In Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1983), Deleuze and Guattari explicitly state that they have never seen an actual schizophrenic in person and are only using schizophrenia as a metaphor. This exclusion of the actual schizophrenic from the discourse about schizophrenia is an ableist attitude that contradicts their desire to revolutionize society. By reducing the complex experiences of schizophrenic individuals to a mere metaphor, Deleuze and Guattari fall into the trap of “oedipalizing” these individuals, which involves simplifying and pathologizing their experiences within a patriarchal framework often associated with Freud’s Oedipus complex.

To release Deleuze and Guattari from their oedipalization of the actual schizophrenic, we must treat the actual schizophrenic not just as a body without organs but as an artist who produces both delusions and hallucinations, not merely a machine that breaks the flow of desire with anhedonia and abolition. Therefore, I argue that Anti-Oedipus itself should be “de-oedipalized” by intersecting with the works of Foucault, Rotenberg, Weber, and Deegan, as well as many other critiques of oedipalization that could be seen as a process of rationalization of capitalistic societal order.

Thoughts on Deleuze and Guattari

First, it is important to recognize that in their work, Deleuze and Guattari use schizophrenia as a metaphor rather than addressing actual people diagnosed with schizophrenia. It seems they have never met a schizophrenic in person, which I find deeply concerning. For instance, they discuss the metaphorical “schizo” in terms of breaking free from societal norms but fail to account for the lived realities of individuals who actually experience schizophrenia.

Moreover, in my opinion, there is no contradiction between being an actual schizophrenic and a revolutionary artist and political activist at the same time. In fact, actual schizophrenia could be seen as a stand-alone rebellion against an oppressive, unbearable reality. Historical examples like Antonin Artaud, a French dramatist and poet who was institutionalized for schizophrenia, show how creativity and mental illness can coexist and even fuel revolutionary thought and art.

Furthermore, excluding actual schizophrenic people from a discourse about schizophrenia as a metaphor is itself an ableist bias. Many people with schizophrenia can heal if they channel their flow of desire into art. This perspective is supported by contemporary mental health practices that encourage art therapy and creative expression as part of treatment.

Additionally, medicalizing and pathologizing people who have different perceptions of reality is part of the actual process of oedipalization that Deleuze and Guattari write about and object to. The eternal panopticon of Foucault is a counter-revolutionary machine that decodes the flows of production of hallucinations and delusions into the oedipalization. This surveillance mechanism forces individuals into self-regulation, further entrenching their marginalization.

Intersection with Other Works

Therefore, I believe that Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari should be read in conjunction with Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason by Michel Foucault. Foucault’s work provides a historical analysis of how societal institutions control and define madness, highlighting the power dynamics involved in the treatment and perception of mental illness.

Additionally, Christianity and Psychiatry by Mordechai Rotenberg should be included within this discourse. Rotenberg explores the intersection of religion and psychiatry, offering a unique perspective on how spiritual beliefs can influence mental health and treatment approaches. His work challenges the purely medical model of mental illness, advocating for a more holistic understanding.

The actual schizophrenic, therefore, can be seen as a machine that produces delusions and hallucinations as well as destruction of motivation and desire. They are incarcerated within oedipalization, imprisoned within their own self-reflection, and forced to avoid political discourse and abstract ideas, becoming deterritorialized and uprooted from their historical and cultural background. “Deterritorialization” here refers to the process by which individuals are disconnected from their social, cultural, and historical contexts, leading to a loss of identity and place within society. This disconnection exacerbates their marginalization and alienation, making it harder for them to reintegrate or find stability.

The Role of the Actual Schizophrenic

Furthermore, the actual schizophrenic is banned from participation in the free market. They don’t work, don’t pay taxes, and thus commit a stand-alone rebellion against capitalism. Therefore, the actual schizophrenic is a doomed sinner who is an abomination in Protestant ethics, as discussed in Max Weber’s work on the Protestant ethic. Weber’s analysis of the Protestant work ethic highlights how societal values stigmatize those who cannot conform to normative economic productivity. According to Weber, the Protestant ethic promotes hard work, frugality, and economic success as signs of individual virtue and salvation. This framework inherently marginalizes those who are unable to participate in the labor market due to mental illness, framing their condition as a moral failing rather than a medical or social issue. Consequently, schizophrenic individuals are seen as failures within this economic and moral framework, further reinforcing their exclusion and stigmatization.

Enter Patricia Deegan, offering a true potential for actual de-oedipalization, a chance of redemption through “a journey of the heart” and the madman production of the “sacred” lived experience. Both Rotenberg and Deegan use religion to counter the oedipalization process. Spirituality is therefore presented as an antidote to the actual oedipalization of Deleuze and Guattari. Deegan, a psychologist with lived experience of schizophrenia, advocates for recovery-oriented approaches that emphasize personal empowerment and self-determination.

According to Rotenberg, the schizophrenic is only doomed by the Protestant ethics of capitalization. Beyond oedipalization, the schizophrenic is not doomed but is rather seen as a machine that produces the spiritual and the mystical, an antidote to oedipalization.

Additionally, schizoanalysis seeks to show how “in the subject who desires, desire can be made to desire its own repression—whence the role of the death instinct in the circuit connecting desire to the social sphere.” Desire produces “even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social reproduction.”

Conclusion

In summary, Deleuze and Guattari’s metaphorical use of schizophrenia fails to include the voices and experiences of actual schizophrenic individuals, leading to an ableist bias. By incorporating the works of Michel Foucault, Mordechai Rotenberg, and Patricia Deegan, we can better understand and address the complexities of schizophrenia, recognizing the potential for healing through art and spirituality. Including the perspectives of those with schizophrenia in these discourses is crucial for a truly revolutionary and inclusive approach. In order to de-oedipalize “schizophrenia and capitalism,” we must include the lived experience of the actual schizophrenic. Only then can we truly revolutionize our understanding and treatment of mental illness.

References:

1. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
2. Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Vintage Books, 1988.
3. Rotenberg, Mordechai. Christianity and Psychiatry. Jason Aronson, Inc., 1995.
4. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Scribner, 1958.
5. Deegan, Patricia E. Recovery: The Lived Experience of Rehabilitation. 1998.
6. Psychology Fandom on Anti-Oedipus