essays

hasbeenttansttari'smostinfluential
transversalitE
andLa
. ,,.lI

psychoanalysis,
partisans.
Here
proposing
to
bringtheir
crucial
the

1:;i;lj-.1;
'l'
,;; ;l i

DI,]EDATE
TO
DFOPSTTEi

t-

Frr

years
Molecalar
those
DavidCoopel

C':)

lr-

tt0
and
thenew

t-

=,
Fl'l

ct
=

u.K. f3.95
AUST.$10.95

(recommended)
N.Z. s13.50
cAIrt. $9.95
u.s.A. $6.95

HOL
RC
455
G8
1984

(,,{r--r

A l lo r b i sC a s c a d
Ael l i a n cFea t r o n s :
3 week
loan,
1 renewal
poticy.
iinesaccoi'ding
to Library
Overdue
Replacemenr
charge:
fee
975+ g15 processing
r n o u r :W A S H I N G T O NS T A T EU N I V E R S I T Y - P r . , l l m a n

PTACEC ON HOLD SHELF

Contents

Introduction by David Cooper

Sepulchrefor an OedipusComplex
r. Institutional

Psychotherapy

Transversality

II

The Group and the Person

24

Anti-Psychiatryand Anti-Psychoanalysis

+5

N{ary Barnes,or Oedipusin Anti-Psychiatry

Money in the Analytic Exchange

6o

Psychoanalysis
and the StrugglesofDesire

6z

The Role of the Signifierin the Institution

Towards a VIicro-Politics of Desire

Bz

z. Towards a New Vocabulary

Machine and Structure

III

The Planeoi'Consistency

r20

IntensiveRedundanciesand ExpressiveRedundancies

r30

Subjectless
Action

r35

Machinic Propositions

t+4

ConcreteMachines

I54

Meaning and Power

r63

3. Politics and Desire

Causality,Subjectivityand Historv
Students,the I\l[adand 'Delinquents'

t75
208

The Micro-Politicsof Fascism

2t7

Becoming a Woman

233

lntroduction

Millions and Millions of PotentialAlices

the State
SocialDemocratsand Euro-Communistsvis-i-vis

.- "J 6"

Molecr-rlarRevolution and Class Struggle

253

Plan for the Planet

242

zGz

(withEricAlliez) 273
CapitalisticSystems,Stntcturesand Processes
z88
Glossary
Index

29r

At present,Fdlix Guattari is undoubtedlybestknown in the English-speaking

world from his hrst work with Gilles Deleuze(tglz), rranslaredas Capitalism
andSchipphrenia
: TheAnti-Oedipus.
With this collection of translatedessays,derived from two books, Ps7(Maspero, r97e) and La RiraLutionmoliculaire
chanalyse
et transuersalitd
(Editions
Recherches,Sdries'Encre', tg77), readerswill now have an opportunity to
becomeacquaintedwith Guattari'searliestnon-conjointwritings.The essays
from the first book range over the ,vearsr g55 to rg7o. La Rir)llutionmohiculaire,
a l t h o u g hp u b l i s h e di n r 9 7 7 ,w a s ' c o n d e n s e ad n d a u g m e n t e d ' i na v e r s i o no f
r g 8 o ( E d i t i o n s r o l r 8 ) . I n t 9 7 9 G u a t t a r i p u b l i s h e da m o r e s y s t e m a t i c ,
theoretical work, L'lnconscientmachinique(Editions Recherches).With Deleuze he has aiso written two shorter books: KaJka:plur unelittiraturemineure
(r975) and Rhi<omes
(rgZ6), both with Editions lr,{inuit,works of rransition
but both influential, before the secondvolume of CapitalismandSchi4phrenia,
Mille Plateaux.not vet translated.
The essaystransiaredin this volumeincludeprincipallyarticlesthat would
be consideredpolitical (in a wide senseof this term) rarher lhan philosophical, but in the tradition of Guattari and Deleuze there can be no
comparlmentalization of disciplines: philosophy, politics, structuralist
linguistics, psychoanalysis (or rarher its undoing), micro-sociology - all
lrontiersare violated but violatedon principle.
This practice simply pushes in a more radical direction what is in fact an
establishedtradition in French intellectual life in this century: that one
shouldstraddlein a suiFciently'magisterial'manner at leasttwo disciplines.
Thus GeorgesCanguilhemcombinesphiiosophicalwork with the analysisof
the categoriesofmedical thought and the history ofbiologicalconcepts;Jean
Toussaint Desanti, who started off in philosophy, became a prolessional
mathematicianin order to pursuehis sort of philosophymore eflectively.The
polymathy of Foucault and Reni Thom is already familiar to Englishlanguagereaders.Apart from 'schizo-analysis',
Deleuzehas written 'as a
philosopher' a book on Kant, two on Spinoza and two on Nietzsche,amongst
others.One might add that when this straddlingoldisciplinesis well done (as

Introduction

in the casesmentionedhere) the resultscan be impressive;when lesswell

done,disastrous.
Fclix Guattari was bv origin a psychoanalystin the Lacan schoolbut was
from very earlyon. This engagementbecameincreasingly
politically'engaged
articlrlatedthrough and after the eventsof Mav r968, in which he plal'ed a
role. But also through the rg6os he worked at La
major behind-the-scenes
clinic
south of Paris u'here he elaboratedhis idea of
psvchiatric
Borde
'institutionai aualvsis' as a methodological critique of institutional
psvchotherapy'which had been the ideologyofthe clinic sinceits inauguration, in which Guattari participated,in r953. Sinceits formation in r975 he
has been centrally active in the International Network Alternative to
Psychiatrv.He has had somecriticismlevelledat him by somecirclesin the
'alternative' movement becauseof his associationwith La Borde, where
electroshock(ECT) and insulin coma are stiil practised.He is not a doctor
and has never given thesetreatmentsto anyone,but more importantly his
'institutional analysis' has the specific aim of'depassing' politically the
practice of institutional psychotherapy.His concept of transversalityis
'transference'(the psychoanalytic
worked out as a critique ofinstitutional
concept). What he means by transversalityin the institutional context
Guattari explains in the chapter of that name in this book. The word,
horvever,also connotesan intellectualmobility acrossdisciplineboundaries
and aboveall the establishmentofa continuum through theory,practiceand
militant action.
Our aurhor has also met w,ithcriticism lrom somecirclesof the organized
In lact there are few people who have
left in terms ol gauchiste'spontaneism'.
thought out so con.sistently,critically aird self-criticallythe problem of
'dangerousmyth'
spontaneousaction, arriving at the conclusionthat it is a
that we have to rar.rscendin a multiplicity of new practicesthat he specifies'I
can alsotestili'to his generosityand to thevery phvsicalrisksthat he has run
in his defenceof dissident Italian leftists accused,rvithout proofs being
brought, of lirrks with terrorism. Today, after the left ascensionto power in
Franceon ro May r98r, F6lix Guattari is involvedrvith publicly important
questions.srrchas the Free Radio svstem (for which he has waged a long
strugglein Europe)as an indicatorofa new st,vlein masscommunicationthat
constitutesa rationalchallengeto rationaladministrators,u'ho at lastseemto
be genuinelyconcernedwith problemsof democracyat the baseof society.
'antiGuattari's position is not, as some people have seemedto think,
theoretical'but representsa new type oftheoreticalactivity that would avoid
the simpiilfing reduction to containing structuressuch as the dyadic and
triadic situations of psychoanalysis(transferencesituation, Oedipal complex) or of C. S. Peirce'srelational logic (to which he often refers).The
particular nature of the rigour that Guattari is developingcan be seen in

Introduction 3
L'lncorucient
machinique,
in his most recentstill unpublished writings and in the
chapter on 'Capitalist Systems,Structuresand Processes'(as yet unpublished in French) in this book. He tells me that his view of theory is that it has
an essentiallycreative function, like art. The aim of theory is to produce new,
more heuristictheoreticalobjectsand he quotesthe inventionofpolyphonyin
music. In the left France of rg8z everyonewants to invent new theoretical
objects.Guattari hassucceededin inventingsome- in fact quite a number of
them.
In this writing, individuals,groupsand'the society'arenot denied,but the
desiring machines operate in the spacesbetweenthese 'entities'. Guattari's
writing itselfissuesfrom this sort ofinterspace and is directed back again into
these'spacesbetween', which are the spaceswhere things are agendes.Then,
by a curious but comprehensiblelogic, the writing itself becomesagencement.
The reader will have to rvork out the meaning of this term lrom the text itself
and the Glossary,l but I shall simply note here that one of the ways that
Guattari vsesagencemenl
is closeto the way that Ert ing Goffman describesthe
everydaylife organization of experience,in FrameAnajsis tor example. But if
one searchesfor analogies between Guattari's position and positions in
'Anglo-Saxon'social
thought,one is hard-pressedto find equivalences
ro the
conceptof rule in, say, ethno-methodologyor in P. Winch's Wittgensteinorientated rule-following approach. The closestone can get is in the conception ofa'plane of consistency'that Guattari develops.
The questionfor Guattari, and the restof us, is how to undo the erstwhile
emancipatory rhetoric of much of the seriesof social revolutionary a{hrmations of the r96osand early r97os.How to re-think what thought might be.
We may havewidely differenrresponses
ro this question,bur one thing is sure:
from now on, in no conceivablelvay can Fdlix Guattari's extensiveand
intenseresponsebe left out ofaccount.
The selectionof articlesin this book deliberatelyomits a number of pieces,
all ofthem interestingbut having many local references
directedat a French
public. The English-languagereader may find some difficulty with the
author's terminology, though theseearlier writings by no means present the
problem of Guattari's later and conjoint work. One might object ro someof
the language and remark that there is a perfectly good philosophical and
scientificlanguagethat has by no meansbeenexhaustedthrough 2,5ooyears
of history,but we should norjump to the conclusionthar Guattari is guilty of
stylisticpen,ersitv.As with Deleuzehis totally explicit aim is to desrructurea
consciousness
and a rationality over-sureofitselfand thus too easyprey to
subtle,and not so subtle,dogmatisms.
The boundariesbetweenthe forms olhuman and non-humanmatter that
t. Referenceshould be made ro the verl,useful and lucid account ol'agencementgivenh
Dialogue.r:
GillesDeleuze,ClairePamet,!-lammarion, r977, pp. 84-9r.

Inroductlon

Fdlix
that clear-cut'Ifwe chooseto foliow
we encounterin the world are never
we
is.because
it
regions of ambiguitv
Guattari in his nornadisrnthrough
emerges
that
clarity
rewarding
u'-t t"rnittttttlu
elimpse from very early on
ihroucl, this highlv orieinal rr'riting'

Sepulchrefor an Oedipus Complexr

DAV'D COOPER

In the form ofa dedication to Lucien Sebag and Pierre Clastres

Death, my lriend, you know. But what death?The death we talk about, the
comfortofsleep at the last, or the dead end offinality that peopledon't talk
about so muchl
When I was six or seventhere was a long period when I rvokeup every night
with the samenightmare- a Lady in black. Shewas coming towards my bed.
I was terrifi,edof her, and my terror woke me up. I was alraid to go back to
sleep.Then, one evening, my brother lent me his air-gun; he said I must
simply shoot her if she came back. She never came again. But what really
surprisedme, I remember clearly, is that I did not in fact load the (real) gun.
This led o{Iin two directions at once. In the direction of the garden - that is
ol the signified - it was my aunt Emilia, my father's sister, with her black
name and her black clothes, a truly horrible woman; and in the direction of
the courtyard - that is of the signifier - it was the wardrobe with the mirror on
it facing my bed, in my parents' bedroom. But ol coursel The words
themselvesexplained it: l'armoire,la Dameennoir,la Damedemoire,l'arme
noire,
I'armoise,lesarmesdu moi, la Mouise.2In the thirties, my father had gone
bankrupt,and, with the assistance
olthis aunt, Emilia, he had setout to raise
angora rabbits: betweenthe crash and the slump, rve ended up eating the
rabbits. Papa was on the vergeofsuicide, but ofcourse there were the children
to consider. . .
Death and the mirror. I 'vho was there and who neednot have beenthere. I
am all there. I am all not there. I am all or nothing.
Then there was the dog. It had bitten me or knocked me over on the gravel
outside the big house at Maigremont, my Aunt Germaine's (sister of my
maternal grandmother) . It rvasjust in lront of a large, gloomy ground-floor
room, where there rvas a billiard table and one of those things br trying
clothes on, jackets or dresses, I forget, a headless body, a body that feit
nothing if you stuck a knife into it, on a wooden sland, wirh a wooden ball on
top of it. Later on I linked it up with'corpse', 'body', rvhich I found in an
r. Published in the issueof Clazgeentirled'Diraison, disir'.
z. The wardrobe, the Ladv in black. the Lady in moiri, the black weapon, wormwood, rhe
weaoonsof the self. the Deoression.

Sepulchrelor an Oedipus Complex

real skv-blue'Still later I made the

Enelish vocabularywith a blue cover,a
Body'
coJnectionrvith Deleuze'sorganless
unweaned'
Real teeth,not just the humped gums ol the
up without.noticing
have.picked
must
I
to"ttthii.tg
so,-,ndles',
Vi..ii, lvirrg
here' The dog's
garden
the
in
Death
t o*'uug.r. ,n".-ori., of No'-u'"li
dog in the dark'
A
the
edge'
over
leap
to
waiting
,..rf-r.e?"g on the balcon)-,
to.tell me
trying
'{ dog uttering'
Nom rlu chien,in th. nume of the iather'
steps
down.the
coming
dog
s.limy
something.Dogswith a cogitn'Andthen that
of death
totems
words,
animated
ut th..niof tis olildados.'Ammals,
It swellsup like a frog' It
A dove, in anothergardcn (my paternaluncle's)'
eagle l fire' over and. over
i. u,.,.ugl.' Mv father's gan' A huge,^tt*ifyilq
getsnowhere trying tcr
Chaplin
again. {i'is like a tlumm2.I"t'sno gooJ' Charlie
thinking about this
After
lamp
gas
a
in
head
)
t.,iiti.,.6un,. (It wedgeshis
the eaglewere two
and
dove
the
that
realized
finally
I
enJ
lr."t" f"t duy, on
bitsofmvoldaddress(ruedel'Aigle,laGarenneColombe)-simpll'
tryng
to home territory evenwhile part of him is
'be
.,o.r,ilglu. Tt.t. child clinging
hguse?.1!e
parents'
my
from
come
I
didn't
if
I
who wouli
;;;;"";"i'.
deaclbirdfliesaway'Iamme.Adeathinstinctrrnleashed|orgood.Andthis
time the Qnaginary)gun rrlatloaded'
more dog-turdson the gravel lt is
There u,ereno more ambivalentdogs,no
not both in the sameplace' And
the
iove
o.
all or nothins. It is the .ugl"
A perr"erselUanicheisrn'
then, whateve, hupp.nt,''it is notl.ring'nothing'
cousin'splatein
(maternal)
open,like the igg on mv
chilclhoodhome broker.r
apart' like the
set
home
,n. frig lrur.rnent kitchen at MaigremoJChildhood
kitchen'
ofanother
corner
the
in
table
oil-clo"th-covered
"
the gardenwith the birds They
I spentsix months with Uncle Charlesof
when I left, thev thought he
cancer.
werervaitinglor him to Ji. t.l. liad lung
to my father's famil;' home
back
went
never
I
l'rad only a few dal's to live'
again
my piano alwaysstood:idea of
A great empty spaceagainstthe wall where
that thing like an island
crossroads'
a
a vacuole. Outside iit
""t''
Friendly Society hall'
of
the
exit
the
opposite
overhangingthe pavement
there' leaning against the
Furtl.reralong. a big piano shof' Lucien Sebag.was
I
don't know But he had alreadv
wail. It w.aseither beforeor after his suicide'
stayedthere- but.then' he had
certainly
he
wall' And
;;; ;".t the Oedipal
to know' Inside' there was my
iu. *o.. reason than I didl I didn't want
ups.tairs'perhaps- or perhaps he
*oth., on the ground floor' NI.vfather was
like my Paternal grandfather. I
had already gone - no ont ftnt* rvhere'Just
it'
done
hal'e
neverknew trim, but he shouldn't
post-officeThey are ciosing'
Nlama behincla cashier'swindorv'A country
her accountbooks l beseech'
I get therejust in time' Or too late' She closes
Sh!sheindicatesrl'ithherheadadooronlrerrightthatopensontodarkness.

Sepulchre lor an Oedipus Complex

Silence.Panic. HE mustn't hear. It should be shut; it's all over. He? Who?
Why, my father surely, lying on his death bed. He is waiting for her to join
him. There's a problem with the electric connection- the lampis going to go
out; it's all over. In the nick of time I manageto reconnectthe thing.
I'm nine; it is a few months belore the outbreak of war. I am in Normandy,
at my (maternal)grandmother's.We are listeningro rhe 'traitor of Stuttgart',
Jean Hdrold Paquis. My grandfather (grandmother has remarried), a vast
and kindly old man, is sitting on the toilet. The door is open so that he can
hear the radio. N{y cutting-out box is by his feet - little paper dolls I make
clothesfor. Grandpa's head hangs right down, onto his knees,and his arms
flop besidehim. Is he touchingmy toys?I want to shoutour to him. Silence.I
turn my head, slowly - an eterniry - towards rhe light on the radio. A terrible
crash. He's fallen onto the floor. Grandmother screams.It's a stroke.Turn off
the radio. Call the neighbours.I'm alonein the dark. Crying, crying.
'Want
to haveone last look at him?'There's a newspaperover his head, to
keepoflthe flies.There's a newspaperover thejam Grandmother'sj ust made
- to keepoffthe flies.
A dead body on top ofthe cupboard where rhe pots ofjam are kept.
I gave them a poem to put in his cofhn. 'What rhymes with bonheur?'He
had
answered,'Instead otfeuille moile,you can just put lesfailles semeurent','But
you can't sav that, Grandpa.' 'You can if I say so!' I would have to ask
someoneelse.I loved him a lot, but he might not know somerhinglike that.
He'd beena worker. An amazing man. A striker. They'd gone on strike at
,, N{onceau-les-Mines.There'd been fighting. Some peoplewere killed.
I

Contemplatingsuicide.A phobic object. Dying to exorcisedeath. Corpse,

Body, Flesh convulsed to put an end to finitude. Death in the hollow ofyour
hand, a finger on the trigger - to trigger offa lot more chaos,for all the others,
too. Putting the lid down. Pulling the chain. Willing impotence.
One bullet into the mouth, another into rhe heart.Just a vear belore his
brotherhe blew his brainsout. A shotgun.Po.intblank. I couldn't understand
it. I lought it without understanding. His way of saying fuck everything. I lelt
only rage.As if he'd shot me.
Naive policemenon bicycles.Blond hair. Outside rhe metro at two a.m.
Come and see me again when you can pay me, little boy, when you've
established1'ourselfin some way. This wasn't really her scene. Maybe she
had nothing to do with that kind of scene.
Aimed at the black, killed the white. Frankly now, do vou really think I'm
going to be all right? I'm amazed by your naive optimism. I do feel a lot
better,it's true. But that'sjust what worriesme, becauservhateverhappens,
it's too late. I'm too old. I can't start againat the beginning.The hopeyou rry
to give me only makes me feel anxiety. Are you reaily taking in what I'm

Sepulchrefor an Oedipus Complex

saying?Or is it your prolessionalduty to pretendnot to believeme?You know

- I've {inallyworked out how to do it.Just thinking of it makesme happy. But
I'll haveto rvait a while, it can only be donein the spring.It'll be lovely,you'll
see. Falling asleepon the beachwhen the tide is comingin -just taking a lew
tabletsfirst -just too many, so as to let oneselfbe carriedout without a fight.
I feel secretlyclose to all the other people who don't want death to be
something that comes lrom outside themselves.Practising mourning for
themselveslike a pianist practisinghis scales.Death to ward offsomething
worse?A death with which we come to feel completelyat home?But there's
anotherdeathofwhich one can say nothing,which hasno pointsofreference,
rvhich alienateseverything. Two rationales of suicide: the paranoid-familial
of Werther, and the schizo-incest
of Kleist. On the one hand, death is human
and meaningful: Mama, you understand, I couldn't go on, Yes son, I
understand, Yes General, I understand, everyoneunderstands,death is
quick, deathis pathetic.On the other,deathis proud, thereis a contemplative
driliing (if that is what it is) towards infinitv, dissolutionthrough inadvertence.
The significant image, to be convincing, to stage the death scene,dries its
tears- the plav-actingis over! I t snatchesat the figureofdeath,the death that
is a desireturned upsidedown. At first it may have beenjust a game,a dizzv
spin - come on, scareme! But it getscaught up in the n-rovingchain, and is
broken and shattered.The imagined death then opens onto a completely
de-territorializeddesire.With everybreakanotherrebeldeath.Are you going
to get rid of your Oedipus for good?Since I'm in it up to the neck, let me
presentmyself for the holocaust.Deciding the undecidable.Join 'society's
suicides'.Stop going along r,r'iththe systemat the very moment when it has
becomeintole rablepoliticalj. Death - to cut offthe last possibleline of retrear.
,-lndto spit in society'sey--e,
with all its con-tricksabout lile as a preparationlor
death, and its social servicesto make life tolerableon the seamy side, its
Eros-Thanatos cocktails.There is the last reflectionon the frosted pictures of
expectation, the agonizing wrench, and at last death - the diamond of
unnamabledesire.

Institutional Psychotherapy

Transversality'

Institutional therapeutics is a delicate infant. Its development needs close

watching, and it tends to keep very bad company. In fact, the threat to its life
comesnot from any congenital debility, but from the factionsofail kinds that
are lying in wait to rob it of its specific object. Psychologists,psychosociologists,even psychoanalysts,are ready to take over bits ofit that they
claim to be their province, while voraciousgovernmentslook for their chance
'incorporate' it in their olficial texts. How many of the hopeful offspring of
to
avant-gardepsychiatry have beenthus kidnapped early in life since the end of
the last war - ergo-therapy,social therapy, community psychiatry and so on.
Let me begin by saying that institutional therapeuticstrcsgotan object, and
that it must be defendedagainst everyonewho wants to make it deviate from
it; it must not let itself become divorced from the reality of the social
problematic. This demands both a new awarenessat the widest possible
sociallevel - for instance the national approach to mental health in France 'and
a definite theoretical stance in relation to existing therapeutics at the
most technical levels. In a sense it may be said that the absence of any
common approach in the present-day psychiatric movement reflects the
segregationthat persistsin various forms between the world of the mad and
the rest of society. Psychiatrists who run mental institutions suffer from a
disjunction between their concern for those in their care and more general
social problems that shows itself in vaious ways: a systematic failure to
understand what is going on outside the hospital walls, a tendency to
psychologizesocial problems, certain blind spots about work and aims insila
the institution and so on. Yet the problem ofthe e{Iectofthe socialsignifier on
the individual lacesus at every moment and at every level, and in the context
of institutional therapeuticsone cannot help coming up against it all the time.
The social relationship is not something apart from individual and family
problems; on the contrary: we are forced to recognize it in every case of
psycho-pathology,and in my view it is even more important when one is
dealing with those psychotic syndromesthat present the most'de-socialized'
appearance.
heldin Parisin
l. A reportpresented
to the 6rst International
Psycho-Drama
Congress,
September I964. Published inthe Rcau dcpslcholhircpieiwtilulilalle,no.

r,

t2

Institutional PsychotheraPY

Freud, rvhosewor.kmainly developedaround the problemof the neuroses,

was well aware oi'this problem, as 1!,ecan see,for instance,from the following:
lor a moment,we can savthar in {bcta
of clanger
Ilwe dwellon thesesituations
to everyageof
is a)lotted
ofdanger)
ofanxiety(thatis.situation
dererminarrt
particular
fitsthe
helplessness
ro it. The dangerofpsychical
as beingappropriate
development
stugeoitheego'sea.lyimmaturity;thedangeroflossofanobject(orlossoflove)fitsthe
fits
thedangerofbeingcastrated
in thefirstyearsofchildliood;
laci ofself-sufficiency'
position,
a special
whichassumes
thephallicphase;anclfinalll,fearofthe super-ego,
ofanxiety
theolddeterminants
ofdevelopment
fitsiheperiodoflaten...In thecourse
to themha'e losttheir
ofdangercorresponding
sincethesituarions
shouidLedropped,
of the ego But thisonlyoccursmostincomo*ing to the strengthening
importance
thefearoflossoflove:thevneverbecome
peopleareunableto surmount
pletely.Nlan,v
and in this respectcarrv on their
lo'e
people's
other
of
tnjependent
.rffici.ntl1,
l e v c cr e a s es.i n c ei .n r h e
h e l r , r . i o uarsi n f a n r sF. c a ro f t h es u p e r - e gs oh o u l dn o r m a l l n
andonlvin therarestcases
in socialrelations,
it isindispensable
lormofrnoralanxiety,
ol
A fewoftheold situations
ofhumansociety.
independent
become
canan indir.idual
ntudificabv makinc( unlemporalr'
in survivingintolaterperiods
danger,too.succeed
, 1 u , 1i n51 [ e i rd e t e r m i n a not fsa n x i e t' r
'old determinantsof anxiety'comeup against
\\'hat is the obstaclethat the
this
!\'henceIhis persistence.
zrnclrhar pfevenrtheir altogetherdisappearing?
are
thenl
produced
that
the
situations
once
Past,
anxieties
sur\rivalofneurotic
and in the absenceolany'situation ofdanger'? A feu'pagesearlier, Freud
reamnns that anxiet)' precedesrepression:the anxiety is caused by ztn
exrernaldanger, it is real;but that external danger is actuallv evoked and
'It is true that the boy felt
determined by the irrstinctualinternal danger:
anxietyin the laceof a demand by his libido in this instanceanxietyat being
in love with his mother.'3Thus it is the internal danger that lays the ground
{br rhe exreqral. In ternls ofreality, the renulciation olthe beloi'edobject
of the lossof the member,but the'castratiou
correlateswith the alcceptance
complex'itself cannot be got rid of by such a renunciation.For in eflecti!
i.npfiesthe introductionofan additionalterm in the situationaltriangulation
of ihe Oe,lipuscomplex,so that therecan be no end to the threat of casttation
'unconsciousneedlor
w,hichwill continuallv reactivatewhat Freud calls the
had remained
position
whose
punisl.rme't,.aCastration and punishment,
the choiceof
governing
of
ambivalence'
the'principle
p.ecariou. becauseof
the uariousparr objecrs,are thus irreversiblycaught up rn the working ofthe
social signifiers.Henceforth, the authority of this socialrealit2will base its
survivai on the establishmentof an irrational morality in rvhich punishment
Pclican editiotr' t913, Pp
z . N c i t I n t r o t l u c t o r yL f t t u T e s D n P s t ' c h a o n o b s i st ,r a n s . . J a m e s S t r a c h t r ' .
l ?o-2 L,
3 . r D r d . ,P . I t 6 .
4.ibid.,p.t4t.

Transversality

r3

will be justified simply by a la'"vof blind repetition, since it cannot be

explained by any ethical legality. It is nor therelore any use trying to
recognizethis persistenceof anxiety beyond actual lsituationsof danger'
throughsorneimpossibledialoguebetweenthe ego ideal a.d the super-ego;
what it in lac meansis that those'situarionsof danger' belongto thespecific
'signifying
logic' of this particular social framework, which will have to be
analysed with the same maieutic rigour as is brought to bear in the
psychoanalysis
of the individual.
The persistence
is really a repetirion,the expressionofa death instinct.By
seeingit merely as a continuity, we miss the questionimplied in it. It seems
natural to prolong the resolutionof the oedipus complexinto a'successful'
integrationinto societv.But surel,vit would be more to the point to seethat
the way anxietv persistsmust be linked with the dependence
of the individual
on the collectivitydescribedby Freud. The fact is that, barring some total
changein the socialorder, the castrationcomplexcan neverbe satisfactorily
resolved,since contemporary sociery persistsin giving it an unconscious
lunction of social regulation.There becomesa more and more pronounced
incompatibilitybetweenthe function of the father, as rhe basisof a possible
solutionlor the individual of the problemsof identificarioninherent in the
structureof the conjugal familv, and the demandsof indusrial societies,in
w-hichan inregratingmodel of the lather/king/godpattern tends ro loseany
efrecti'eness
outsidethe sphereof mystification.This is especiallyevidentin
phasesof social regression,as for instancewhen lascist,d.ictatorialresimesor
regimesof personal,presidentialpower give rise to imaginary phenomenaof
collectivepseudo-phallicizationthat end in a ridiculous totemizarion bv
popularvote of a leader:the leaderactually remainsessentiallywithout anv
real control over the signifyingmachine of the economicsy-stem,
which sdll
continuesto reirforce rhe pou'er and autonomy of its functioning. The
Kennedysand Khrushchevswho tried to evade this law were 'sacrificed'though by different rituals - the one on rhe altar ol the oil companies,rhe
otherson that olthe baronsofheavv industrv.
The real subjectivity in modern Stares,rhe real powers of decisionrvhateverthe old-fashioneddreams of the bearersof 'narional legitimacy'cannot be identified with any individual or u,ith rhe existenceof any small
groupofenlightenedleaders.It is still unconsciousand blind, anclthereis no
hope that anv modern oedipus will guide its steps.The sorutioncertainly
does not lie in summoning up or trying to rehabilitate ancestraiforms,
preciselvbecausethe Freudianexperiencehas taught us to seethe problem of,
on the one har"rd,the persistenceofanxiety beyond changesin the situation
that producedir, and on the other, the limits thar can be assignedto this
process.
This is whereinstitutionaltherapeuticscomesin: its objeit is ro rry ro
changethe data acceptedby the super-egointo a new kind ofacceptanceof

t+

Institutional Ps1'chotheraPy

,initiative" renderingpointlessthe blind socialdemand1bra particular kind

ofcastratingprocedureto the exclusionofanvthing else'
a certaln
What t am'no1t'pr6posingis only a tem'porarymeasure'There are
ln an
stages
diflbrent
malk
number oftbrmulationsthat I havefound usefulto
of
grid
of
kind
a
out
set
to
it
sensible
institutional experiment. i think
among
ideas
and
meanings
of
meandering
the
correspondencebetween
of grora'ingdispsvchotics,especiallyschizophrenics'and the mechanrsms
cordanceberngsetupatalllevelso|industrialsocietyinitsneo-capita]istand
have to identify
bureaucraricsocialistphasewhereby the individual tendsto
Th-e^
consumrng-machines-consuming-producing-machines'
of
rn,ithan icleal
ofthat ideal. If
silenceofthe catatonicis plrhaps a pioneeringinterpretation
spokenword'
the group is going to structureiiselfin termsola rejectionofthe
societybe
olthat
area
an
Hou'can
sile.ce?
from
r"sponrc is there apart
",1',a-i
spoken
the
reducing
of
the
process
in
dent
a
small
make
even
as
to
altereclso
ol'
groups
between
u,ord to a rvritten system?we must, I think, distiuguish
that
oi'groups
descriptions
formal
of
two kinds. one must be extremeiywary
we are dealing
clefinethem apart from r,t'hatthey are aiming to do Tlie groups
and are
u,ith in institutional therapeuticsare involved in a definiteactivitv,
into
research
as
is
known
totallv di{Ierentlrom thoseusuallyinvolvedin what
or
some
sense
in
and
institution'
an
to
group dvnarnics.They are attached
to
do'
ajob
wolld,
the
on
vie*'point
a
perspective,
other thev have a
as we go
This first distinction, though it mav prove difficult to sustain
and
gloups
independent
further. can be summarizedas being one between
endeavours
a'vocation"
with
group
or
clependentgroups The subjectgroup,
this casecan
to coirrrol it. or"n behaviour and elucidateits object, and in
could say of this type of group
produceits own tools olelucidation. schotre'1
systemof
that it hearsand is heard,and that it can thereforework out its own
its own
beyond
a
rt'orld
to
open
become
so
hierarchizing structuresand
getting things
of
capable
not
is
group
The
dependent
iirterests.
imrneciiatc
is subjectto its
into this sort ofperspective;the way it hierarchizesstrr,rctures
it makesa
that
group
subject
the
adaptationto oih.. groups.One can say of
but
heard',
is
cause
that'its
group
onl,v
dependent
statement- u'hereasof the
when'
or
lvhom,
by
or
where
knows
no one
kind
This clistinctionis not absolute;it is simply a first atremptto index the
poles
ofreference'
like
two
ofgroup we are dealingrvith. In fact it operates
to oscillate
sin"cee*,.ry group, bui especially every subject group, tends
and a
speak,
is
to
r.t'ork
whose
a
subjectivity
of
that
positions:
betu.eentwo
reference
This
subjectivityruhi.h i. lost ro view in the othernessofsocietv.
o| role.
p.o-,,i.]., us with a sa|eguard against |alling into the |ormalism
by the
played
part
ofthe
problem
the
consider
usio
analvsis;it also leads
'Le Translert dit fondamental de Freud pour poser le problime; psychanalyseet
5. J. Schotre,
no r'
ittslitutionelLe,
institution', Reuuedeltslchothitaqie

Transversality l5
individual in the group as a being with the power of speech,
and thus to
re-examinethe usual mechanism of psycho-sociological
and structuralist
descriptions'It is also, undoubtedly,a rvay ofgettingback to the theories
of
,training
bureaucracy,self-nranagement,
grorpr'und ,o on, r.vhichregularly
lail in their object becauseof their scientistic.efu.al to involve
meaniirsand
c o n t e nt .
I think it convenientfurther to distinguish,in groups,berween
the .manilest content' - that is, what is said and done, rhe atrirudesof
the difrerenr
members, the schisms, the appearanceof leaders, of aspiri'g
leaders,
scapegoats
and so on - and the 'latent content',which can be discoieredonlv
by interpreting the various escapesofmeaning in the order ofphenomena.
w e m a y d e f i n et h i s l a t e n t c o n t e n ra s ' g r o u p d e s i r e ' :i t m u s t b e
articurated
with the group'sspecificlorm of love and death instincts.
Freud said rhat in serious neurosesthere was a disrocation
of the fundamentalinstincts;the probrem facing the analystwas ro relncegrate
them in
sucha way as to dispel,say,the sympromsof sado-masochism.
io undertake
suchan operation,the very structureofinstitutionswhoseonly
existenceas a
body is imaginary requires the setting-up or institutional means
for the
purpose- though it must not be forgottenthat thesecannor
claim to be more
than svmbolic mediationstending by their very nature to
be broken down
into some kind of meaning. It is not the same as what
happens in the
psychoa'al'1ictransference.
The phenomenaof imaginari,porr.rrionure not
graspedand articularedon the basisofan anarvsr'sinterpreiation.
The group
phantasyis essentiallysymbolic,whateverimagerymay te
dra*n utong"uyri.
Its inertia is regulated onry by an endressreturn to rhe
same inJolubr"
problems.Experienceof institutional therapeuticsmakes
it clear that indi'idual phantasizingne'er respectsthe particular nature
of this svmbolic
planeofgroup phantasy.on rhe conrrary)it tries to absorbit.
and to'overla1.
it with particular imaginingsrhar are 'naturaily' to
be found in the various
roles that could be srructured by using the signifiers
circurated by the
collective.
This 'imaginarf incarnation'ofsomeof the signifyingarticulations
ofthe group - on the pretextoforganization,e{ficiency,presrlse,
or, equally,
ofincapacity,non-qualification,erc. - crystailizesth..iru.tu-."
ur'u *toti,
hindersits possibilitiesfor change,determinesits featuresand
irs ,mass,,and
restrictsro the urmost its possibiritiesror dialoguewith anything
that might
tend to bring its 'rulesof the game, into question:in short,it proiuces
ull ih.
conditionsfor degeneratinginto what we have calleda clependent
group.
The unconsciousdesire ol a group, lor jnstance the ,pi.lot,
gioup in a
traditionalhospital,as expressionof a death insti,cr, wili probJly
not ue
suchas can be statedin words, and will producea whole.ung.
of ,y*pto_..
Thoughthosesymptomsmay in a sensebe ,articulatedlike I language,
and
describable-ina structurar context, to the extent that thev tend
to d"iseiisethe

r6

Institutionai Psvchotherapv

institution ;rs subject thev will ne,,,ersucceedin expressingthemselves

otherrvisethan ir-iincohelenttermsfrom which onewill still be left to decipher
the object(totem and raboo)erectedat the very point at which the emergence
of real speechin rhe group becomesan impossibility.The bringing to light of
this point, at which desireis reducedto showingonly the tip of a (false)nose,
cannotgive accessto clesireitselfsincethat $'ill remain,as such,ttnconscious
as the neurotic intends, relusing completelyto let itself be demolishedby
exhaustiveexplanations.But clearinga space)keepingroom for a first piane
of referencelor this group desireto be identified,will immediatelyplace the
whole statementof the problem be,vondchancerelationships,will throw an
entirely new light on'problems of organization" and to that extent obscure
attemptsat formal anclapparentlyrational description.In other rvords,it is
t h e t r i a l r u t t f o r a n y a t t e m p ta t g r o u Pa n a l v s i s ,
In such irn attempt, a lirndamenraldistinctionrvill emergeirom the very
beginningbetweencuring the alienationof the group 2p6[snzlysingit, The
lunction of u group analysisis not the sameas that of settingup a community
Let
orientation,or group-engineering.
with a more oi lesspsycho-sociological
me repeat: group anal.vsisis both more and less than role-adaptation,
transmitting inlormarion and so on. The kev questionshave been asked
beibre iikes and dislikeshave har.dened,beforesub-groupshave formed, at
the ievel lrom rvhich the group's potential creativity springs though
ol
rejection
generallv all creativity is strangled at birth by its complete
its
clich6s
about
mouthing
its
time
spend
to
ionr.,.,r.. the group preferring
,rermsof r.eference"
and thus closingolrthe possibilityofeversat'inganvthing
real, that is, anything that could have any connectionwith other strandsof
human discourse,historical,scientific,aestheticor whatever'
Take the caseof a political group'condemned by history': r+'hatsort of
desirecould it live by orher rhan one forever turning in upon itself?It will
have incessantlvto be producing mechanismsof defence,o{' denial, of
group phantasies,m1,ths,dogmasand soon. Analvsisof thesecan
repr.ession,
only leacito discooeringthat they expressrhe natureofthe group'sdeathwish
in its relation to the buried and emasculatedhistoric instinctsof enslaved
masses)classesor nationalities.It seemsto me lhat this last aspectof the
,highestleyel,ofanah,siscannot be separatedfronr the other psychoanalytic
problemsof the group, or indeedof individuals.
In rhe traditional psychiatric hospital, for example, there is a dominant
group consistingofthe director, the financial administrator, the doctors and
Iheir vuives,etc.,who lorm a solid structurethat blocksanVexpressionofthe
clesireof the groups of human beingsof which the institution is composed.
\dhat happeni ro rhar desire?One looksfirst at the symptomsto be seenat the
levelofvaiious sub-groups,which carry the classicsocialblemishes,beingset
but alsoat other signsin their ways, disturbance,all forms of divisiveness,

Transversality | 7
alcohoiismamong one lot ofnurses perhaps,or the generallyunintelligent
behaviourofanother (for it is quite true, as Lacan pointsout, that stupidity is
anotherway of expressingviolent emotion). It is surely a kind olrespectfor
the m),steryembodiedin neurosesand psychoses
that makesthoseattendants
in our moderngra,,eyard degradethemsell'esand thus pay negativehomage
to the messageof thosewhom the entireorganizationof our societyis geared
to disregarding.Not everyonecan a{Iord, like some psychiatrists,to take
refugein the higher reachesofaestheticismand thus indicate that, as lar as
theyare concerned,it is not life'smajor questionsrhat they aredealingwith in
their hospitalwork.
.
Group analysiswill not makeit its aim to elucidatea statictruth underlying
this symptomatology,but rather to create the conditions lavourable to a
particular mode of interpretation,
identical, lollowing Schotte's view, to a
transference.
Translerenceand inter.pretationrepresenta symbolicmode ol
intervention,but u,emust rementberthat they are not somethingdone by an
individual or group rhat adopts the role of'analvst, lor the purpose.The
interpretationmav rvellbe given by the idiot of the ward if he is able to make
his voiceheardat the right time, the time rvhena parricularsignifierbecomes
activeat the levelofthe structureas a rvhole,lor instancein organizinga game
of hop-scotch.One has to meet interpretarionhalf-way.One must therefore
- psychological,sociological,pedagogicalor
rid oneselfofallpreconceptions
even therapeutic.In as much as the psychiatristor nurse wields a certain
amountofpower, he or she must be consideredresponsiblelor destroyingthe
possibilities
ofexpressionofthe institution'sunconscioussubjecti'ity.A fixed
transference,
a rigid mechanism,Iike the relationshipof nursesand patients
with the doctor, an obligatory, predetermined,'territorialized,transference
onto a particularrole or stereotype,is worsethan a resistanceto analysis:it is
a wav of interiorizing bourgeoisrepressionby the repetitive,archaic and
artificialre-emergence
ol the phenomenaof caste,w,ith all the spellbinding
and reactionarygroup phantasiesthey bring in their train.
As a temporarysupport set up to preserve,at leastfor a time, the objectof
our practice,I propose to replacethe ambiguous idea of the institutional
transferencewith a new concept: transaersalitl,t
in the group. The idea of
transversality
is opposedto:
(a) verticality,as describedin the organogrammeof a pyramidal structure
(leaders,assistants,
etc.);
(b) horizontality,as it existsin the disturbedwards ofa hospital,or) even
more,in the senilewards; in other words a stateof afrairsin which thinss and
peoplefit in as bestthel,can with the situationin which they find themselves.
Think of a field with a lence around it in rvhich there are horseswith
adjustableblinkers: the adjustment of their blinkers is the 'coefEcientof
transversality'.
Ifthey are so adjustedas to makethe horsestotally blind. then

rB

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

will takeplace'Graduallv,
presumablva certain traumaticlorm of eucor:nter
about more easily' Let
moving
them
envisage
as the flaps'areopened,one can
terms of affectivitv'
in
one.another
to
relate
people
how
us try to inragine
porcupines' no one can
A.cor.li.,g to Schopenhauer'slamous parable of the
stand being too closeto his fellow-men:
to protectthemhuddledtogetlrer
One lreezingwinterday, a herdofporcupines
pricked
eachother
their
spines
But
warmth
combinid
theil
by
coid
s"lue,ugoin.tihe
thev
howeler,
conrinued,
cold
the
since
,o puint"rttuthat thevsoonclrewapartagain.
prickingpainful'This
lound
the
they
more
onie
and
more,
once
together
haclto drarv
just the right
alternatemovingtogetherand apart went on until thev discovered
o
evils
both
from
thenr
preserve
distanceto
of
degreeof blindne-ss
In a hospital,the'coeticient of transversality'isthe
the
that
suggest
each of the people present. However, I would
^official
that resultsfrom it'
acl.iustingofail the blinkers, a'd the overt communication
the level of the medicai
clependsalmost automaticallyon rr'hat happens^at
administratorand
the
financial
sr"rperintendent,
nursing
superintendent,the
There may' of
base'
so on. Hence all mo'emeni is lrom the summit to the
'pressurelrom the base', but it never usually managesto
course,be some
must
make any changein the overallsiructureof blindness.An1'modification
role, and a. reperson's
each
ol
redefinition
structural
of
a
be in tcrrns
people remain fixated on
orientation of the whole institution' So long as
themselves'
!hemselves,they neverseeanything
of
Transversaliiy is a dimension that"' tries to overcome both the impasse
pureVelticalityandthato|merehorizontality:ittendstobeachier'edwhen
and, aboveail, in
there is rnaximum communicationamong differentlevels
working towards'
is
group
independent
an
different meanings. it is this that
Myhypotl.,esisisthis:itispossibletochangethevariouscoe{ficientsofunFor example,
.or..iou, transversalityat ihe variousie'els of an institution.
consisting of
circle
the
within
place
the overr communicarion that takes
on an exremain
may
house'doctors
the
and
the medical superintendent
is
transversality
of
coefncient
its
that
appear
it
may
ancl
ievel,
tremely lormal
ue.ylo*.ontheotherhandthelatentandrepressedcoefficientexistingat
nurses have more
department level may be found to be much higher: the
genuinerelationshipsamongthemselves,.invirtueofra'hichthepatientscan
- and remember this
irake transferencesthat havi a therapeutic effect' Now
though o|
is still hypothetical- the multiple coefhcientsof transversa]it,v,
transversality
of
level
fact,
the
In
differing intensity, remain homogeneous'
determines how
.*iuting"in the group that has the real power unconsciously
are regulated'
of
transversality
levels
other
of
the exiensive fou.iUiti,i.r
- there were a strong coefficient of
unusual
be
would
it
though
Suppose
6. ParergaundParalipornna,Partl I,'Gleichnisse und Parabeln''

Transversality

rg

tra.nsversality
among the house-doctors:since thev generallyhave no real
powerin the running of the institution, that,strongcoefEcientwould remain
latent,and would be lelt only in a very small area. If I may be permitted to
apply an analogv lrom thermo-dvnamicsto a spherein which matters are
determinedbv sociallinesofforce,I would say thar the excessive
insrirurional
entropy of this stare of transversalityresults in the absorption of any
inclinationto lessenit. But do not forget that the fact that we are convinced
that one or severalgroups hold the key to regulatingthe latent transversality
of the institution as a whole doesnot mean that we can identify the group or
groupsconcerned.They,arenot necessarily
the sameasthe o{icial authorities
of the establishmentwho control onlf its ofEcialexpression.It is essentialto
distinguishthe real power from the manifestpower. The real relationshipof
lorceshas to be analysed.Everyoneknows that the law ofthe State is not
made by the ministries; similarly, in a psychiatric hospital, defactopower mav
elude the o{Ecial representativesof the law and be shared among various
sub-groups- the ward. the specialistdepartment, even the hospital social
clubor the stallassociation.It seemseminentlydesirablethat the doctorsand
nurseswho are supposedto be responsiblefor caring for the patientsshould
securecollectivecontrol over the managementof thosethings beyond rules
and regulationsthat determinethe atmosphere,the relationships,everything
that really makesthe institution tick. But you cannorachievethis merely by
declaringa reform; the best intentions in the world are no guaranteeof
actuallygettingto this dimensionof transversalitv,
If the declaredintention of the doctors and nursesis to have an ellect
beyondmerely that of a disclaimer,their entireselvesas desiringbeingsmust
be involvedand brought into questionby the signifyingsrrucrurethey face.
This could lead to a decisivere-examinationof a whole seriesof supposedly
establishedtrurhsi why does the State rvithhold grants?Why does Social
Securitypersistentlyrefusero recognizegroup rherapy?Though essenrially
liberal, surelv medicine is reactionary when it comesto matters of classification and hierarchy- as indeed are our trade-unionfederations,though they
are in theory more {o the left. In an institution, the effective, that is
unconscious,source of power, the holder of the real power, is neither
permanentnor obvious. It has to be flushedout, so to say, by an analytic
searchthat at times invol'es huge detoursby way ofthe crucial problenrsof
our time.
If the analysisof an institution consisrsin endeavouringto make ir aware
that it shouldgain control ofwhat is being said, any possibilityofcreative
inten'entionwill dependon its initiatorsbeingable ro existat the point where
'it
shouldhavebeenable to speak'so as to be imprinted by the signifierof the
group - in other words to accept a form of casrrarion.This wound, this
barrier,this obliterationoftheir powersofimagination leadsback,ofcourse,

20

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

to underlie any
to an analysis of the objects discovered.bv.Freudianism
laeces'pents
breast'
subject:
the
bl'
order
p"*iUi. ^r.".ption of the svmbolic
detachable;but it alsoleads
and so on, all ofrvhich are at leastin phantasy
to the
oi'the role of all ihe transitionalobjectsTrelated
back to an anal_vsis
living
worth
life
makes
that
all
*^rftl.g machine, the television,in short
picture
the
with
starting
objects'
part
these
,oauy.furrf,..more' the sum ofall
is itselfthrown daily onto the
of the body as the basistbr sell--identification'
Exchangethat dealswith shares
market asibclder,alongsidethe hiddenStock
all the rest lndustrial society
and
sport
aestheticism,
in pseudo-eroticism,
its need- satisfvinglrom the
by
fate
ofour
control
Lincollsclous
thus secut'es
in
death instinct to disjoint ever'vconsumer/producer
foinr oi ui.t of the
great
a
becoming
itself
find
would
,u.h u *'u1' that ultimatel,vhumanity
God of the Econornyshall
lragmented body held togeti.reronly as the.suPreme
'the order of
to fit into
symptom
a
social
force
ro
pointl't's
decree.It is, then,
basis; it ivould be like taking an
;hd;', Ibt it.,ut i. in the last resort its only
timesa day and shuttinghim u.l
hundred
oUr..rionutrvhowasheshis handsa
his svmptomatologyonto pantc
displace
would
he
in a rootn without a sink
and unbearableattacksofanxietl"
will it be possiUteOnly i{'there ts a certain deg'ee '->fttansversalitv
1t119tt
re-thinking- to set golng
continual
to
o,liy to. a titne, sinceall this is subject
as a
group
of using the
real
un u,-tutyti.processgiving individuals a
.hope
and
group
the
both
u'ill manifest
mirror. When that huppei', the individual
to
revealed
will
be
he
chain'
himsel{.If the group hejoins actsas a signifying
other
the
on
lf'
dilemmas
neurotic
himselfas he is bevondhi' i*ugi'.'u'l'and
alienated'caughtup in its
f-,".a, fr. happenstojoin u g,n,i that is profoundlv
his
narcissismreinlorced
will have
own distorted imagery, tit ntu'otit
silently devoting
continue
can
L.1'onOhis wildest hopes,while the psychotic
h i m s e l f t o h i s s u b l i m e u ' ' i u " " u l p u t ' i o n ' ' T h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a n i n t e join
rvention
the
that an individual would
;i ;;; il"p-"nalvtic kind is the possibility
group's
the
to
access
thus gain
g.oup-u. both listener and speaker' and
i n w a r d n e s as n d i n t e r P r e t t '
Ifacertaindegreeoftransversalitybecomessolidlvestab]ishedinan
in-thegroup: the delusionsand
institution,a new kind ofdialogue ca"tegin
patient
maniGstationswhich havehithertokept the
all the other unconscrous
inakindofsolitaryconfinementcanachieveacollectivemodeo|expresston.
Themodificationo|theSuper.egothatlspokeofearlieroccursatthemoment
to emerge where social
rea<1'v
when a particular model of lunguugt'is
a
ritual' To consider the
as
structures have been hitherto functioning only
is
to posethe problem of
process
a
in
such
oossibilitv oftherapists intervening
to someextent a radical
presuppose
in
turn'
would,
;;;;t;;;;;tit.r'Ji.rt
than it is given by Winnicott
7. I use this term in a more general sense

Transversality 2r
translormationin the presentpsychoanalyticmovement- which has certainl"'not up to now been much interestedin re-centringits activity on real
patientswhere they actually are, that is. lor the most part, in the sphereof
hospitaland communitv psychiatry.
The social statr:s of medical superintendentis the basis of a phantasv
alienation,settinghim up as a distantpersonage.How couldsucha personbe
persuadedeven to accept, let alone be eager, to have his every move
questioned,without retreating in panic? The doctor who abandons his
phantasystatusin order to place his role on a svmbolicplane is, on the other
hand,well placedto effectthe necessarysplitting-upof the medicalfunction
into a number of different responsibilitiesinvolving variouskinds of gror"rps
'totemization'
and individuals,The object of that function movesawav lrom
andis transferredto diflerentkinds ofinsritutions,extensions
and delegations
ofpower.The very lact that the doctor could adopt sucha splitting-upwould
thus representthe first phaseolsetting up a structureoftransversality.His
'articulated
role,now
like a language',rvouldbe involvedwith the sum of the
grouprsphantasiesand signifiers.Rather than eachindividual acting out the
's
comedyof life for his own and other people benefit in line with the reification
of the group, transr,ersalityappearsinevitably to demand the imprinting of
eachrole. Once firmly establishedby a group wielding a significantshareof
Iegalandrealpower, this principleofquestioningand re-definingrolesis very
likely,ifapplied in an analytic context,to have repercussions
at every other
levelas well. Such a modificationo[ego idealsalso modifiesthe introjectsol
the super-ego,and makes it possibleto set in motion a tvpe of castration
complexrelated to different socialdemandsfrom thosepatientspreviously
experienced
in their familial, professionaland other relationships.To accept
'put
being
on trial', being verbally laid bare b.v others, a certain type of
reciprocalchallenge,and humour, the abolition ofhierarchicalprivilegeand
soon- all this will tend to createa new group law whose'initiating' eflectswill
bring to light, or at leastinto the halllight, a number of signsthat actualize
transcendental
aspectsofmadnesshithertorepressed.Phantasies
ofdeath, or
ofbodily destruction,so important in psychoses,
can be re-experienced
in the
rvarmatmospherecfa group, eventhough one might have thought their late
wasessentiallyto remain in the controiof a neo-societywhosemissionwas to
exorcisethem.
This said, however,one must not lose sight of the lact that, even when
pavedrvith the bestintentions,the therapeuticendeavouris still constantlyin
danger of foundering in the besotting mythology of 'togetherness'.But
showsthat the bestsafeguardagainstthat dangeris to bring to the
experience
surfacethe group's instinctual demands. These force everyone,whether
patient or doctor, to consider the problem of their being and destiny. The
groupthen becomesambiguous.At one level,it is reassuringand protective,

't"trr-rl,.a

2'2 Institutional Psychotherapv

and a
del-ences
screeningall accessto ranscendence,generatingobsessional
mode of alienationone cannot heip finding comforting,lending eternity at
the
interest.But at the other, there appearsbehind this artificialreassurance
most detailedpicture of human finitude,in which everyundertakingof mine
is taken from me in the name of a demand more implacablethan mv own
death - that ol being car,rghtup in the existenceof that other, who alone
suaranteeswhat reachesme via human speech.Unlike rvhat happens in
to the master/
individual anal.vsis,
there is no longeranv imaginary rel'erence
to me to representa possiblewav of
slaverelationship.and it thereforeseelns
overcomingthe castrationcomplex.
*
Transversalityin the group is a dimensionoppositeand complementaryto
the sructures that generatepvramidai hierarchizationand sterile ways of
transrnittingmessages.
Transversality is the unconscioussource of action in the group, going
beyondthe objectivelaws on which it is based,calrying the group'sdesire.
This dirnensioncan only be seenclearlv in certain groups rvhich, intentry to acceptthe meanirtgof their praxis,and establish
tionally or otheru.,ise,
themselvesas subject groups - thus putting themselvesin the position ol
having to bring about their orvn death,
By contrast,dependentgroupsare determinedpassivelylrom outside,and
magically protect themwith the help of mechanismsof self-preservation,
selvesfrom a non-senseexperiencedas external. In so doing, the! are
re.jectingall possibilitl' of the dialecticalenrichment that arisesfrom the
group'sotherness.
A group analysis,setlingout to reorganizethe structuresoftransversality,
seemsa possibility- providing it avoidsboth the trap ofthosepsychologizing
descriptionsol its own internal reiationshipswhich result in losing the
phantasmicdimensionspeculiarto the group, and that of compartmentalization which purposelykeepsit on the levelofa dependentgroup.
The effectofthe group's signifieron the subiectis felt, on the part ofthe
'threshold'
of castration,for at each phase of its
latter, at the level ol a
symbolic historv, the group has its own demand to make on the individual
subjects,involving a relativeabandonmentoftheir instinctualureingsto'be
partofa group'.
There may or may not be a compatibility betweenthis desire,this group
Eros, and the practicalpossibilitiesfor eachpersonofsupportingsuch a trial
- a trial that rnay be experiencedin different wavs, from a senseofrejection or
even of mutilation, to creativeacceptancethat could lead to a permanent
c h a n g ei n t h e p e r s o n a l i t r .
This imprinting bv the group is not a one-\4a)'affair:it givessomerights,
some authority to the individuals a{Iected.But, on the other hand, it can

:1n'l3

.:::

Transversalit,v 2g
prodr'rcealterations in the group's level of tolera'ce towards
individual
dive.gences,
and result in crisesover lnystifiedissuesthat will endanger
the
group'sfuture.
The role olgroup analystis to revealthe existenceofsuch situations
and to
.
leadthe group as a whoie to be lessready to evadethe lessonsthey
teach.
It is rny hvpothesisthat thereis nothing inevitableabout the
bureaucratic
self-mutilationof a subject groupJor its unconsciousresort to
mechanisrns
that milirareagainstits potentiarrransversaliry.
They depend,rrom the first
moment,on an acceptanceof the risk _ which accompanies
the emergenceof
any phe'omenonofrear meaning- ofhaving to conrronti.rutionutity]
aeuii,
and the othernessofthe other.

The Group and the person 25

The Group and the Personr

A fragmented balance.sheet
To lollo'v so many other speakerson the themeof society,the responsibilitv
of
i n d i v i d u a l s ,m i l i t a n t s ,g r o u p sa n d s . o n , c r e a r e sa c e r t a i ni n h i b i t i o n .
It is a
minefield. with questionershidden in fortifieddug-outswairing to atrack
r.,ou:
what right has he to speak?what businessis it olhis? rvhat is.-he
getting at?
And professionalacademicsare there too, to recall ,,o, to n.,oJ.rtr,,.1nd
systematicall,v
to restrict a'v approach to theseproblems that is remorely
ambitious.
N o t e v e na m b i t i o u s n, e c e s s a r i l b
v ,u t r e r a t e dt o r e s p o n s i b i l i t yF.o r e x a m p r e .
we ma,vstudy this or that text of \{arx or Freud, we mav studl it rn
depth,
seeingit in the cortext ofthe generaltrendsolthe period; but very leru
people
will agree to pursue that study into its bearing on the present
day, on its
inrplicarion.s
for. sav, rhe de','elopment
of iinperlrism and rhe Third r\,orld,
or a particular current schoolofthousht.
In diflerentplacesand dilrerentci.crn,srancesI haveput fb^vard
crifrerent
ideas. For ir-)stance
I have spokenof the'intrr-rjects
o|the super-ego,,of the
capacitvofdependentgroups ro allorvthe individuar super-ego
a rl.eerein. I
h:rve tried to suEgestprocedureslor instit'tional analtisis.sieki'g
more or
lesssuccessiulll,
to introduceflexibilirv.Today I $,ant to go further, but once
a g a i n t h e r e i s r h i s i n h i b i t i o n .T h e b e s tw ^ y r o r a c k l e ; t i . , t t t , i n t .
ro rrv ro
expressmy ideasjustas they come into mv head.
T'hefirst quesrionis: rvharcan ir possibrydo for 'them,?Do I reaily
needto
sav any more, and ro exposemvselfyet again?The peopleand groups
I ha,".e
know'and arsi-redrvith go about their businesswith little
concern for
institutional analvsis:histo'y takesits course,and all groups tend
to follow
th.eir,routine
unti.ltheir path is divertedin somer.vayor other by an obstacle,
wlretherironr wirhin or without.
No, that is 'ot precisel,v
true: the 'rilitant groupswith whom I am stiil in
touch, institurionaltherap'groups and the groupi in the FGERI,2
have not
r.Firstgivenasaralktoaworkinggroupatl_aBorde
i n r 9 6 6 , a n d p u t r n r o w r t l i n g i n - { p r irl9 6 g .
2 FiddrationdesCroupesd'tucleetdeRechercheInsrirutionelle(FcderationifInsiiruriJnal
Stud1,and ResearchGroups), producing rhe retiew Rcchercfus,
published in paris.

beenwithout interesrin the subject;it isjust thar they take

it ror,"vhatit, on
w.ho]e,is - ideas picked up here and rhere lrom Marx,
Freud, Lacan,
fe
Trotskyisrcriricism and so on. some indeed think
that quite ..rough i,
alreadygoing on, and that the time spentabsorbing
rhoseideascould will be
usedfor thinking about somethingelse.
It seemsro me, on rhecontrary.lhar if our theoriesare
not properlyworked
out' we are rn danger offloundering about, wasting
our e{rorts'atcollective
thinking, and Ietting ourse.lvesbe carried u*uy
Ly psycho-sociologicaily
inspired.trends
ofthought or be caughrup by the demanis ofthe rrp;?_;;;.
of hard-linemilitant groups.
Take one hard-liner,Louis Althusser:
Theproletarian
revorution
arsoneedsmilitantswhoarescholars
(historical
materialism)and phiiosophers
(dialecticai
materialism)
to help to derenduna a.u.top it,
theory . The fusionof Marxisttheorywith the workers'movement
i, tt. gr.ut.rt
e'entin rhewholeofhtrmanhisrory(its firsreffectbeing
the socialisr
revolitions).
Philosophy
represenrs
the classstruggrein theory.The key functionof trrepraciice
ot
philosophy
canbesumnred
up in a word:tracinga lineofdemarcation
between
tru.
andlalseideas.As Leninsaid,'The entireclasssiruggle
mavar rimesbecontained
in
the battlelor one word rarher than another.some"-words
figrrtamongthemser'es,
causeof equivocation,
overwhichdecisive,but undecided,
barrlesare
;tffi: :::,:tt
Amateurskeepoutr I stiil want to say rhingsas they
comero mind without
.
bting on guard alr the time, but I havet..n uiu.n.d.
ivi,hou, ,.utring it, ii.
classstrugglelies in rrait ar every corner- especialry
sinceintellectuit, iulr,
whatAlthussercalrs'crassinstinct'. It seemsthat
the classstruggre.un.onr.
downro a collisionberweencrasses
of words- the words of ,thJJass, uguin.t
the wordsof the bourgeoisie.Does it realrymatrer
so much what oneiuys?
one Trotskyisrgroup did me the honour of devoting
over half of a ,i*r..n_
pagepamphlet to a vehementdenu.nciation
of my tedioustheoriesof group
subjectivity,I almost collapsed under the weight of
thei, u..rrurioir,-pJI
bourgeois,impenitent idearist,irresponsible"elementl,your
lalse theories
couldmisleadgood militants.,aThey comparedme
to Henri de Man, a Nazi
collaboratorsentencedin his absenceto foiced rabour
when the war was over.
It makesyou think . . .
To.return to the point. My inhibitions, as you can
see)can be expressed
only bv beingdressedup in externarstate-ents, and
now trrat I am using
quotations as weapons of debate, I will
offer some more in the hope oi
salvation:
3.'La Philosophiecomme arme de la rlvolution,, La pmfe, no, r
3g, April r 96g.
deLa Vlrit6,.Scienceshumaines et lurte de classes,series,
4. Cahierc
no. l, r965 (General Ediror:
Pierre Lamberr):'lndeed the rheoriss ofr\{.
cuartari and his-r.iends are rhemservesan ariena t i o n .. . ' ( p . 1 6 ) .

26

Institutional Psychotherapv

lVhelea porr'erful
impetushasbeerr
givento grouplormation
neuroses
maydiminish
and at all eventstemporariiv
disappear
attemptshavealso
fsavsFreud].Justifiable
neuroses
beennradeto turn thisantagonism
berween
andgrouplormationto therapeutic account.
Eventhosewhodo notregretthedisappearance
from
ofreligious
illusions
the civilizedworld of todayu'ill admit that so longas theywerein forcethey ollered
thosewho were bound by them the mostpowerfuiprotectionagainstthe dangerof
Nor is it hardto discernthatall thetiesthatbindpeopleto mvstico-religious
neurosis.
or phiiosophico-religious
sectsandcomrnunities
areexpressions
ofcrooked
curesofali
kinds of ileuroses.
All of this is correlatedwith rhecontrasrbetweendirectlysexual
impulsions
andthosewhichareinhibitedin theiraim.s
As you see.Freud did not dissociatethe problem of neurosislrom what is
expressedin the term'collective grouping', For hirn there is a continuity
betweenthe statesof being in love, hvpnosisand group formation. Freud
might u'ell authorize me to say whatever I liked lrom a lree associationof
thesethemes.But the hard-linersonceagainseizethe microphone:'That's all
very well when you're talking ofneurosis or even institutional therapy, but
have no right to say'u,hatever
vou pleasein the highly responsiblefield of
1'r-'u
the classstruggle. . .'
The point upon which I ibel most uncertain,and militant groupsare most
intransigent,is that of the group's subjectivity.'. . . production also is not
orlly a particlllar production.Rather,it is alwavsa certainsocialbodv, a rodal
:subject,
whrch is active in a greater or sparser totalitv of branchesof production.'t'Oh yes, I am well aw,arethat when N{arx talks like that of a social
subiect he does not mean it in the way I use it, involving a correlateof
phantasizing,and a rvholeaspectofsocial creativitywhich I have soughtto
sum up as'transversality'.All the same,I am glad to find in \{arx- and no
longer the 'young Marx'- this re-emergence
of subjectivity.
!!'ell nort'. this quotations gzrtnehas repercussionson a register of the
unconsciouslevel. I have only to read them out, and the spectreof guilt
recedes,the statueof the Commander the victim of intemperance,all is wellI can now sav rvhateverI like on my own account.I am not going to tr.vto
produce a theory basing the intrinsic interlinking ofhistorical processes
on
the demandsof the unconscious.To me that is too obvious to need demonstrating.The u,holelabric of m1,inmost existenceis made up of the eventsof
corltemporaryhistorl'- at leastin so far as they have affectedme in various
wavs. Nly phantasieshave been moulded by the'r936 complex', by that
wonderful book of Trotsky's, M) Ltft,by all the extraordinaryrhetoricof the
Liberation, especiallvthose of the 1,outh hostelling movementJanarchist
5 . F r e u d , G r o u p P s l c h o L o g a n d t h e A n a l 2 tshi seEo gf o( r 9 z r ) , e d . J . S r r a c h c y , i n V o l . x v i i i o f t h e
C o m p l e t eW o r k s . H o g a r t h P r e s s ,t 9 5 5 . p p . 6 7 - r 4 3 .
6. Karlil1arx,/arroduclionrotheCriliqueofPoliticalEconomlli35T),publishedasrhelnrroducrionin
Grundrisst(Pelican Marx Library, rg73).

The Group and the Person e7

groups,
the UJRF,7 Trotskyistgroupsand the Yugoslavbrigades,and, more
'Communist menace'- the TwentiethCongressof
recently,
by the sag'dof the
theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union, the Algerian w,ar, the War in
Vietnam,the left wing of the UNEF,8 and so on and so on.
Yet I also like that kind of inwardness I see in Descartes,seekingto find
strengthfrom within himself, and the ultra-inward writing of people like
Proustand Gide; I likeJarry, Kafka,Joyce,Beckett,Blanchotand Artaud justasin musicI like Faurd,Debussyand Ravel.Clearly, then,I am a divided
man:a petty bourgeoiswho has flirted with certain elerqentsof the workers'
movement,
but has kept alive his subscriptionto the ideologyof the ruling
class.IfAlthusser had been there, I should have had to make my choice, and I
might u'ell have found myself in the serried ranks of those indispensable
agentsof any social revolution - the theory-mongers.But this brings us back
to squareone- the same problem has to be facedall over again. For whom do
I speak?Am I really only one of those pathetic agents of the academic
ideology,the bourgeois ideology, who try to build a bridge between the
classes
and so contribute ro integrating the working classinto the bourgeois
order?
Another figure to whom I owe a lot is Sartre. It is not exactly easyto admit
it. I likeSartrenot so much for the consistency
of his theoreticalcontribution,
but the opposite- for the way he goesoffat tangents,for all his mistakesand
or La Nausieto
thegoodfaith in which he makes them, from Les Communistes
his endeavoursto integrate Marxist d.ialecticinto the mainstream of philosophy,which has certainly lailed. I like Sartre preciselybecauseofhis failure;
he seemsto me to have set himself against the contradictory demands that
weretormenting him and to have remained obsessedwith them; he appearsto
have resolved no problem, apart from never having been seduced by the
elegance
of structuralism, or the dogmatism of some of Mao Tse-tung's more
distinguishedadherents. Sartre's confusions, his naiveties, his passion, all
add to his value in my eyes. Which brings me back to the slippery slope:
humanism,preservingour values and all that.
Ofcourse,that is only as long as the individual unconsciousand history do
not meet,and the topology of the Moebius strip as delineatedby Lacan is not
a meansofgetting lrom one to the other. As far as I am concerned,posing the
questionis something of a device, lor I am convinced - as experienceof
psychosesand serious neurosesmakes absolutely clear - that, beyond the
Ego, the subject is to be found scattered in fragments all over the world ol
history: a patient with delusions will start talking foreign languages,will
7. UJRF: Union desJeunessesRpublicaines de France (the youth movement ofthe French
C c m m u n i s tP a r t v ) .
8 . U N E F : U n i o n N a t i o n a l ed e s E t u d i a n u d e F r a n c e .

qB Institutional PsychotheraPv
halllcinate history, and wars and classconflictswill becomethe meansof
his/her own sell-expression.
All this ma1'be true of madness'vou maY say, but histor.v,the history of
socialgroups,has notl-ringto do with such madness.Here again, I show my
fundamentalirresponsibility.If only I could content myself rvith itemizing
the various areasofphantasy in which I can find securitylBut then I would
remain condemned to going back and lorth in a dead end, and would have to
admir that I have merely vielded to the external constraintsthat were part
and parcel of each ef the situationsthat made me. Underlying my different
options - being-lor-historv, being-for-a-particular-group' being-for-literature - is there not some searchfor an unthinking answerto what I can only
call being-lor-existence,being-lor-suffering?
The child, the neurotic, everv one of us, starts by being denied any true
of selt fcr the individual can only speak in the context of the
possessi,rn
discoursecf the Other. To continue with the quotation lrom Freud I gave
earlieron,
bv hisorvnsymptomformations
a neuroticisobligedto replace
I1'heis leftto himself,
He creates
his own rvorldoi
{iom ivhichhe is exclr-rded.
the sreatgrouplormations
and thus
imaginationlor himself.hts orr'llreligion,his own svstemof delusions,
of
waywhichis clearevidence
in a distorted
of hr-rmanity
theinstitutions
recapitulates
q
sexualinlpulsions
partplavedbv thcclirectl;'
theciominating
The establisheddiscourseofthe groupsofyoung peoplethat I belongedto,
the establisheddiscourseof the workers'organizationsI encounteredin the
filties, the philosophicaldiscourseofthe bourgeoisuniversity,literary disand its own
eachhad its own consistency
course,and ail the other discourses,
to
trv
and make
to
it
in
order
myself
that
I
adapt
demanded
and
each
axioms,
it m1' own. At the same time, these successiveattempts at mastering
discoursesactualll, lbrmed me by lragmenting me - since that fragmentation
itselfwas, on the plane of the imaginary,simply the first beginningof a more
proibund reuniting. After reading a novel, I would find a whole new world
openin{ trp belble me in, say,a vouth hostel,quite anotherin politicalaction
and so on. My behaviourIVasthus affectedby a kind of poli morphism with
more or less perverseimplications. Diflerent social bodies of relerencewere
expectingme to make a decisionon one level or another. and to become
establishedin someidentifiablerole - but identifiableb,vwhom?An intellectual?A militant?A prolessionalrevolutionary?Perhaps,but in the distanceI
'You are going to be a psychoanalyst.'
beganto hear somethingsaying,
Note. however. that these different orders must not be seen on the same
ievel. A certain tvpe of group initiation has its own special imprint: real
q. Freud. ()roup Ps-rchologlt
and the 'lnal1sisofthe Ego,p. t4t.

The Group and the Person 29

militantactivit), in a reified social context createsa radical break with the
sense
of passivitythat comeswith participationin the usual institutions.It
maybe that I shali later on come to see that I was myself conributing a
certainactivism, an illusion of eilectiveness,a headlong rush forward. Yet I
believethat no one who had the experienceof being a militant in one of those
youthorganizationsor mass movements,in t.heCommunist Party or some
splintergroup, will ever again be just the same as everyoneelse.Whether
therewas real effectivenesshardly matters; certain kinds of action and
concentration
representa break with the habitual social processes,
and in
particularwith the modes of communication and expressionof feeling
inheritedfrom the lamily.
I have tried to schematize this break, this difference, by distinguishing
between
the subjectgroup and the objectgroup. This involvesto someextent
reopening
the questionof the distinction betweenintellectualsand manual
rvorkers,
a slight chanceoftaking up the desireofa group, howeverconcealed
it may be, a chanceof escapingfrom the immutable determinism whose
modelscome lrom the structufe of the nuclear family, the organization of
labourin industrialsocieties(in terms of rvagesand of hierarchv),the army,
t h ec h u r c ha n d t h e u n i v e r s i t l .
A smallgroup of militants is somethingapart from society;the subversion
it plansis not usually directed to something in the immediate future, exceptin
such exceptional cases as that of Fidel Castro or the Latin American
guerriilas.
Its horizon is the boundary ofhistory itself: anything is possible,
evenif in reality the universeremains opaque.Somethingof the same sort.
existsin institutional pedagogy and institutional psychotherapy, Even in
impossible,
dead-endsituations,one tries to tinker with the institutional
machinery,
to producean eflecton somepart of it; the institutionsacquirea
kind of plasticity, at least in the way they are representedin the sphere ol
intention.
Caslro,at the head of hundreds of thousandsof Cubans, unhesitatingly
wentto \{'ar againstwhat he called 'organigrammism', or planning from the
cenre. This is something that is a problem throughout all the so-called
socialistsocieties.A certain concept of the institution, which I should call
non-subjective,
implies that the systemand its modifications exist to servean
externalend, as part of a teieologicalsystem.There is a programme to fulfil,
and a number of possibleoptions, but it is always a question of responding to
specificdemandsto produce- production here being taken in the widest sense
(it canreferto entertainmentor education as well as to consumergoods).The
production of the institution remains a sub-whole wirhin production as a
whole.It is a residue,suggestingwhat Lacan callsthe objetpetit'a'.What are
the laws governing the formation o[ institutions? Is there not a general
problemof the production of institutions?

3o

InstitutionalPsychotheraPv

s r o d u c ei n s t i t u t i o n s ; t hcer e a t i v er u m b l i n g s
o l e c o l l d s a yt h a r r e y o l u t i o n p
that ulrleashedthe French revolution rvere luxuriant in this respect'But
bewareof spelling revolution with a capitai R. Things happenedby way of
modilications,and any masterplan remainedentirel)'abstractand
successive
constitunever put into eflect:this is evident in, for instance,the successive
tions drafted bv the French revolution.Only with the historvof the rvorkers'
movementsince lvlarx have we seena consciousplan settingout to produce
institutional lnodelsfor reorgauizingthe structureof the Statenon-r"rtopian
witl'r a view to its I'uturer',itheling awa.v- for starling up a revolutionary
power, for setting up political and trade-union bodies aiming (at least in
theorv) to fuifil the demands of the class struggle' It is noteworthy that
organizationalproblems have olten more truly engenderedsplinter groups,
major battles, even schisms,than have ideologicaldivergences;and with
Lelinism, the problem of organizationbecamethe primordial one. Debates
abor-rtthe party line, the signifiedand the signification\'\'erevery often no
more rh,{l'la lront to conceallvhat was at issueat the levelof the organization'
ai signifier,which at timeswent down to the tiniestdetail.Who shouldconrol
rl.risor that authority?Horv should the unions be relatedto the Party?What
tvasto be the role ofthe soviets?
of
There is of course a generai problem about the subjectiveprocesses
'breakthroughgroups' tl-rroughout
history,but for the moment I r'r'antsimply
to fbcusthe idea ol the subjectgroup on the birth ofrevolutionarygroups,ru
These groups make a spccial point of linking. or tr)'ing to link, theit
theil revolutionaryprogramme. Hisorg:rnizationoptions ver)' closel,v
"vith
event that was stifled by the
great
creative
to
one
torically,,we can point
hegemonyof stalinism in the USSR and in the Communist International.
Even today, most revolutionarytendenciesstili seeorganizationalproblems
in the lramework within which thev were lormulated fift,vvearsago by Lenin.
Irnperialism,on the other hand, seemsto have been capableof producing
relative institutional solutions enabling it to escapefrom even the most
catastrophicordeals.After the crisisof I929 it producedthe Nen' Deal; after
and re-mould
tl-reSecondWolld \\rar it was able to organize'reconstruction'
effected
partial
measures)
only
were,
These
olcourse.
relations.
iuternational
bv tria.l and error, since the dominant imperialism had lormulated no
consistentpolicy or aims. But in the terms of production,thev have enabled
inrperialism to remain considerablvin advance ol the so-calledsocialist
Statesin its capacity for institutional creativity. But in the socialistStates
of the maior projectsofreform since r956 hasi-etseenthe light ofday. In
nor"re
this respectit is the diflerencethat is crucial.At the time olthe first Five Year
Plan, Russia r.vasintroducing capitalist Productionplans into its lactories
r o . l t u o u l d b e p a r t i c u l a r l vi n t c r e s t i n gt o a p p l v r h i s i d e a t o p o p u l a r r e l i g i o u sh e r e s i e s

The Group and the Person 3 r

Eventod.a1,,
in both the technologicaland the industrialfields,the organization of'production and even the internal structure of companiesare still
largelydependenton the modelsset up by capitalisrn.We are alsoseeingthe
importationinto Russia and Czechoslovakiaof the capitalist partern of mass
consumption
ofcars. It looksas though the plannedstructureofthe socialist
States
is not capableolpermitting the emergence
olanv form of originalsocial
creativitvin responseto the dentandsofdiflerentsocialgroups.Verv diflerent
wasthe situationafter the r9r7 revolution, beforethe Stalinist terror took
over.Though the sovietsrapidly degeneratedat the masslevel, there were
someintensivelycreative 1.earsin a number of specificareas - cinema,
architecture,
education,sexuality,etc. Even Freudianismmade considerable
progress.
The r 9 r 7 revolution is still chargedwith a powerful group Eros, and
it will Iong continue to exercisethat porver: the vast lorcesofsocial creativity
unleashed
by it illuminated the field ofresearchin all spheres.
\\'e may rvellbe witnessingthe darvnof a new revolutionarydevelopmer-rt
thatwill follow on lrom that sombre period, but we are still too closeto the
dailver,entsofhistorl.to seeit clearlv.The extraordinaryway that bureaucratization
tookplacein the BolshevikParty and the sovietStateunderStalin
seemsto me comparableto neurotic processes
that becomemore violent as
the instinctsunderlying them are more powerful. The Stalin dictatorship
I couldneverhave taken so excessivea lorm had it not neededto repressthe
fastest-florr'ing
currentolsocial expressionthe world haseverknown. It must
I
alsobe recognizedthat the voluntarismofthe Leninist organizationand its
I
s,vstematic
mistrust of the spontaneityof the massesundoubtediyled it to
missseeingthe revolutionarypossibilitiesrepresentedby the soviets.In fact
thereneverwasany real theory of sovietorganizationin Leninism:'All power
to the soviets'was only a transitional slogan, and the sovietswere soon
centralized
to suit the Bolsheviks'determinationto maintain absolutecontrol
of all porverin view of the rise of counter-revolutionaryattack fi-om both
withinand without. The only institutionsthat remainedimportant were the
Stateporr'er,the Party and the armv. The systemsof organizationaldecentralizationestablished
by the BolshevikParty during the yearsofunderground
struggle
disappearedin lavour of centralism.The Internationalwas militarizedrvilly-nilly, and the various organizationsin sympathy with Bolshevism
were made to accept the absurd 'Trventy-One Points'. Enormous revolutionarvlorcesall over the world thus found themselvesarbitrarily cut off
from their proper sociaicontext, and some Communist bodiesnever really
(The Communist movement was unable, above all, to become
recovered.
established
and organizedin vast areas ofwhat we today call the Third World
-presumablyto indicatethat it is'a world apart'.)
The samepattern of organization (Partir - Central Committee - Politburo
- secretariat- secretary-general;and mass organizations, links between

32

Institutional Psychotherapy

Partv and people,s16.)is just as disastrousin the internationalCommunist

rro!'ementersa whole. The samesort of militant superstructures,
established
in a revolutionarycontext,are supposedto supply to the organizationalneeds
o{'a highiy irrdustrializedsocialistState.This absurdity is productiveof the
\4,orstl)ureaucraticperversions.How can the sarnehandfulof'menproposeto
direct everything at once - State bodies,organizationsofl,oung people,of
wolkers and ofpeasants,cultural activity, the armv, etc.,erc.- with noneof
the intermediateauthoritieshavingthe leastautonor.r.r1,
in working out its own
line of actior-r?
Whether or not it givesrise to contradictionswith this tendency
or t.hat,or to confrontationsthat cannot be resolvedsimply bv arbitration
liorri above.
Never has the internationaiistideal fallen so lorvl The reaction ol the
pro-Chinesemovementshas beento preacha return to Stalinistorthodoxy,as
revisedand correctedbv Mao Tse-tung,but in fact it is hard ro seehorvthey
rvill resolr.etheselundamental problerns.At the end of the iast century',a
militant was someonelormed by the struggle, who could break with the
dominant ideologvand could toleratethe absurditvof dailv life, the hurniliatiorrsof repression,and evendeath itself, becausethereu'as no doubt in his
mind that everyblow to capitalismwas a stepon the h,ayto a socialistsociety.
The only context in which we find such revolutionariestoday is that of
guerrilla uarfare, of which Che Guevara has ieft us such an extraordinarv
politic|.
account in his Testarnettt|
The political or syndical sr1,leof the Communist organizationsof today
tends to be totally humourless.The bureaucrat experiencespolitics and
svndicalisnrin the short term;he is oft.enfelt to be an outsiderat work, even
though his comradesrecognizethe meritsof what he is doing,and rely on him
- at his request* asone would rely on a public service.There ale exceptionsJ
a
great manv indeed.who are genuinemilitants of the peoplein thoseorganizations,but the party machinemistusts them, keepingthenron a tighr rein,
and ends up bl'destrovingthem or trying to expeithem.
it is alwavs the massof the peoplewho havecreatednew fcrrn.is
ofstruggle:
'invented'
it was thev r.vho
soviets,thet,rvho set ap ad hacstrike committees,
thev rvho first thought of'occupationsin t936. The Party and the unionshave
systematicallvretreatedfrom the creativitv of the people;indeed,sincethe
Stalin peliod, they have not n-lerelyretreatedbut have positivelyopposed
innovation of any kind. One has only to recall the part played by the
communists in France at the Liberation, when they used lorce as lvell as
persuasionto reintegrateinto the framelr,orkolthe Stateall the new formsof
struggleand organizationthat had emerged.This resultedin rvorkscommitteeswithout porver,and a Social Securitl,that is merely a form of delayed
wagesto be nranipulatedbv managementand the Stateso as ro control the
working classand so on.

The Group and the Person 33

It may be said that the working classmust simpll' e{Iecta 'restitution'ol
these
subjectiveprocedures,that they must becomea disciplinedarmv of
militants
and so on. Yet surelywhat they are seekingis somethingdiflerentthevrvantto producea visibleaim for their activitiesand struggles.To return
tothenotionsI put forward provisionally,I would say that the revolutionary
organizationhas become separated lrom the signifier of the working class's
discourse,
and becomeinsteadclosedin upon itselfand antagonisticto any
expression
ofsub.jectivitvon the part ofthe various sub-wholesand groups,
thesubjectgroups spoken of by Marx. Group subjectivitv can then express
itselfonj by way ofphantasy-making, which channelsit offinto the sphereof
theimaginary.To be a worker, to be a young person,automaticallymeans
sharinga particular kind of (most inadequate)group phantasy.To be a
militantworker,a militant revolutionary,meansescapinglrom that imaginaryworld and becoming connectedto the real texture ofan organization, part
of the prolongation of an open formalization of the historical process. In
eflect,
thesametext for analysisofsocietyand its classcontradictionsextends
into both the text of a theoretical/politicalsystem and the texture of the
organization.
There is thus a double articulationat three levels:that of the
spontaneous,
creativeprocessesof the masses;that of their organizational
expression;
and that of the theoreticallormulation of their historical and
strategic
aims.
Not having grasped this double articulalion, the workers' movement
unknot'inglylalls into a bourgeoisindividualistideologi,.In reality,a group
is not just the sum of a nurnber of individuals: the group does not move
immediately
lrom 'I' to 'you', from the leaderto the rank and frle,lrom the
partyto themasses.
A subjectgroup is not embodiedin a delegatedindividual
whocanclaim to speakon its behalf: it is primarily an intentionto act, based
on a provisionaltotalizationand producing somethingtrue in the developmentof its action..UnlikeAlthusser,the subjectgroup is not a theoretician
producingconcepts;it producessignifiers,not signification;it producesthe
institutionand institutionalization,not a party or a line; it modifies the
generaldirectionofhistorl', but does not claim to write it; it interpretsthe
situation,and with its truth illuminates all the formulations coexisting
simultaneously
in the workers' movement,Today, the truth olthe NLF in
Vietnamand the Democratic Republic of Vietnam illuminates the whole
rangeof possibilitieslor struggle against imperialism that now exist, and
revealsthe real meaningofthe period ofpeaceful coexisrence
that lollowed
theYaltaand Potsdamagreements.
Today, too, the struggleofrevolutionary
organizations
in Latin America brings into questionall the lormulationsol
the workers'movementand all the sociologicaltheoriesrecognizedby the
bourgeois
mind. Yet one cannot say that Che Guevara,Ho Chi-minh, or the
leadersofthe NLF are producersofphilosophicalconcepts:it is revolution-

g4

Institutional Psychotherapv

ary actionthat becomesspeechand interpretation,independentofany formal

studl' and examinatiorrof the totality of what is said and done.This doesnot
nlean that one has no right to sa,r'anything - on the contrary, one can say
what one wants all the more lreely preciselybecause'what one saysis less
irnportant than what is being done.Sa2ingis not always /oizg!
Thi.sbringsus to a mofe generalproblenr:does'saying'meanan\,thingmore
tharrthe productionofits own sense?
Sureiy,what the wholeanall.sisof Capilal
makesciear is precisel,v
that behind every processolproduction, circulation
and consumptionthereis an order ofsymbolicproductionthat constitutesthe
very labric of everv relationship
of prodrrction, circulation and consumption,
and ofall the structura!orders,It is impossibleto separatethe productionof
an) consumercornmodityfrom the institution that supportsthat production,
The sarnecan be said of teaching,training, research,etc.The Statemachine
and the machine ofrepression produce anti-production,
that is to say signifiers
that exist to block and preventthe emergenceofany strbjectiveprocesson the
part of the group. I believer.,u'e
should think of repression.or the existenceof
the State,or bureaucratization.not as passiveor inert, but as dynamic.Just
as Freud could talk <lfthedvnarnicprocesses
underlf ing psvchicrepression)
so it must be understoodthat, like the odysse,v
ol things returning to their
'rightful place',
bureaucracies,churches.universitiesand other such bodies
develop ar entire ideologl and set of phantasiesof repressionin order to
cor-lnterthe processes
ofsocial creationin everysphere.
The incapacity of the rvorkers'movement to analysesuch institutions'
conditionsolploduction, and their function olanti-production, doomsit to
remain passivein the laceolcapitalist initiativesin that sphere.Consider,for
instance, the university and the armv. It mav appcar that all that is
happening in a university is the transmissionof messages,of bourgeois
knowledge;but w,eknow that in reality a lot elseis alsohappening,including
a rvhole operation ol moulding people to fit the key functions of bourgeois
societyarrd its regulatoryimages.In the armv, at.ieastthe traditionalarmy,
not a greatdeal of what happens is put into words.But rheStatew,ouldhardly
spendso much, year after year, on teachingyoung men.iustto march up and
don,n; that is only a pretext: the real purposeis to train people,and make
them relate to one another, with a \.iew to the clearly stated objectiveof
disr:ipline.Their training is not merelr,an apprenticeshipin military techniques, but the establishmentof a mechanism of subordination in their
imaginations. Similar examplescan be found in so-calledprimitive societies:
to be a full member of the tribe, one has to fulfil certain conditions; one must
successfulll' undergo certain ceremonies of initiation - that is, of social
integration by means perhaps ol mingling one's blood with a primordial
totemic image.and by developinga senseolbelonging to the group. And, in
lact, underli ing the rational accountone may giveolsuch group phenomena,

The Group and the Person 35

phantasymechanismsof this nature are still at work in capitalist societies.
The rvorkers'movement seemsto be peculiarl,vunfitted to recognizethose
mechanisms;
it relatessubjectiveprocessesto individual phenomena,and
lails to recognizethe series of phantasies which actually make up the real
fabricol the whole organizationand solidity ol the masses.To achieveany
understanding
ofsocial groups, one must get rid ofone kind ofrationalistpositivist
vision of the individual (and of history). One must be capableof
grasping
the unitiesunderlyinghistoricalphenomena,the modesof symbolic
communicationproper to groups (where there is often no mode of spoken
contract),the systemsthat enable individuals not to lose themselvesin
interpersonal
relationships,and so on. To me it is all reminiscentof a flock of
migratingbirds: it has its own structure, the shape it makes in the air, its
function,its direction - and all determined without benefit of a single central
committee
meeting,or elaborationof a correctline. Generallyspeaking,our
understanding
of group phenomenais very inadequate.Primitive societies
arecollectivelylar better ethnologiststhan the scholarssent out to study
them.The gangof young men that lorms spontaneouslyin a sectionof town
doesnot recruit membersor chargea subscription;it is a matter of recognitionandinternalorganization.Organizingsucha collectivedependsnor only
on the words that are said, but on the lormation of images underlying the
constitution
of any group, and theseseemto me somethingfundamental- the
supportupon which all their other aims and objectsrest. I do not think one
canfulll'graspthe acts!attitudesor inner life ofanl'group without grasping
the thematicsand functions of its 'acting out' of phantasies.Hitherto the
workers'movement has functioned only by way of an idealist approach to
theseproblems.There is, lor instance,no descriptionofthe specialcharacteristicsof theworkingclassthat establishedthe ParisCommune, no description
of its creative imagination. Bourgeois historians o{Ier such meaningless
comments
as that 'the Hungarian workerswere courageous',and then pass
on to a formal,self-enclosed
analysisof the variouselementsof socialgroups
as though they had no bearing on the problems of the class struggle or
organizationalstrategy, and without reference to the lact that the laws
governing the group's formations of images are different in kind from
contractuallarvs- like those relative to setting up a limited company, for
instance,or the French Association Law of r 9o r . You cannot relate the sum ol'
a group'sphantasyphenomenato any s_vstem
of deductionsworking only
with motivations made fully explicit at the rational level. There are some
momentsin historywhen repressedmotivesemerge,a whr-.rle
phantasyorder,
that can be translated,among other things, into phenomenaof collective
identification
with a leader- for instanceNazism. The individual 'I' asks
whcrethe
imageis, the identifying image that makesus all membersof 'Big
Boy's'gangrather than Jojo's';Jojo is that dark fellow with the motor-bike,

36

Institutional Psychotherapy

,.r'herezrs
it may be someone- anvone- else who has the characteristics
demandedby the phantasyworld of this particulargroup.Similarlv' the great
leadersof history were peopleu'ho servedas somethingon which to hang
'be
'be
When Jojo, or Hitler, tells people to
Jojos' or
society'sphar.rtasies.
of
kind
Hitlers', thel' a;" not sPeakingso much as circulatinga particular
find
we
shall
that
particularJojo
inrage to be used in the group:'Through
ourselves.'But who actually saYSthis?The whole point is that no one sa2sit,
becauseif one were to saVit to oleself, it would becomesomethingdifferent.
At the level of the group's phantasystructure' we no longer {ind language
'I' and an other through words and a
operating in this way, setting up an
system of significations.There is, to start rvith, a kind of solidification,a
settirrg inro a mass; thisis us,and other people are different, and usually not
worth bothering with - there is no communication possible.There is a
territorializationof phantas;-,an imagining of the grouP as a body, that
absorbssubjectivity into itself. From this there flow all the phenomenaof
nrisunderstanding,racism, regionalism,nationalism and other archaisms
that have utterly defeatedthe understandingofsocial theorists
.AndrdN{alrauxoncesaid on televisionthat the nineteenthcenturylvasthe
centLrryof internationalism,whereasthe twentiethis the centarvof national'
ism. He might have added without exaggerationthat it is also the centuryof
regionalism and particularism. In sornebig cities in America' going from one
s6eet into the next is like changing tribes. Yet there is an ever-increasing
uliversalitv of scientific signifiers;production becomesmore worldwide
everv day; every advancein scholarshipis taken uP b.vresearcherseveryrvhere; it is conceivablethat there might one dav be a single supgr'
inlormation-machinethat couid be usedfor hundredsof thousandsoldi{IerIn the scientificfield, ever.vthingtoda) is shared:the sameis
ent researchers.
tiue of literature,art and so on. However,this doesnot mean that we are not
a generaldrawing inwards in the field. not of the real, but the
n,itnessir.rg
imaginary, and the imaginary at its most regressive.In fact, the two
phenomenaare complementary:it isjust when thereis most universalitythat
n,e feel the need to return as lar as possible to national and regional
'de-code'and
Cistinctness.The more capitalism follows its tendency to
,cle-territorialize',
artificial
the more does it seek to awaken or re-arryaken
territorialitiesand residual errcodings,thus moving to counteractits own
teDdency.
How can we understand these group functions of the imaginary, and all
their variations?How can we get away from that persistentcouple:machinic
universalityand archaicparticularitY?My distinctionbetweenthe two types
ol-groupis not an absoluteone. I sa.vthat the subjectgroup is articulatedlike
a languageand iinks itself to the sum of historicaldiscourse,rvhereasthe
dependent group is structured according to a spatial mode, and has a

The Group and the Person g7

specificallv
imaginary mode of represenration,thar it is the medium of the
groupphantasies;in reality, however, we are dealing not so much ,"vithtr.t,o
sortsof group, but two functions, and the two may even coincide. A passive
groupcan suddenlythrow up a mode ofsubjectivity that developsa whole
system
of tensions,a whole internal dynamic. on the other hand, any subject
groupwill havephaseswhen it gets bogged down at the level of the imaginary:
then,ilit is to avoid becoming the prisoner of its own phantasies,irs active
principlemust be recovered by way of a system of analytic interpretation.
Onemight perhaps sa)' rhat the dependent group permanently represenrsa
potentialsub-wholeofthe subject group,lrand, as a counrerpolntto the
formulations
of Lacan, one might add that only a partial, detachedi.stitutionalobjectcan provide it with a basis.
Takenvo other examples:
First,the psychiatrichospital.This is a srrucruretotally dependenron rhe
'arioussocialsystemsthat support it - the state, SocialsecJrity and so on.
Groupphantasiesare built up around finance, mental illness,the psychiatrist,the nurse, etc. In any particular department, however, u ..pu.uta
objectivemay be established that leads to a profound reordering of thut
phantasizing.
That objectivemight be a therapeuticclub. We may:saythat
thatclubis the institutionalobjective(Lacan's objet
petit'a', arrheinstitutional level)rhat makesit possibleto start up an analytic process.clearly the
analvticalstructure, the anal\ser, is not the therapeutic club itself, but
something
dependentupon that institutionalobiective,which I havedefined
elsewhere
as an institutional r.acuole.It might. for example,be a group of
nurses,
psychiarrists
or patients that forms that analytical,hollow srruc;ure
whereunconsciousphenomena can be deciphered, and which ficr a time
bringsa subject group into being wirhin the massive strucrure of rhe
psychiatrichospital.
Second,
the Communist Party. Like its massorganizations(trade unior-rs,
youthorganizations,
women's organizations,etc.) the Party can be wholly
manipulated
by all the structuresof a bourgeoisState, and can work as a
hctor for integration.In a senseone can e'en say that the developmentofa
modern,capitalistState needssuch organizationsofworkers by workers in
order to regulatethe relations of production. The crushing of rvorkers,
organizations
in Spainafter i936 causeda considerabledelay to rhe proeress
of Spanishcapitalism, whereas the various ways of integrating the working
dasspromotedin thosecountries that had popular lronts in ,r
936, or national
frontsin 1945,enabled the State and the various social orsanizations
introduced
by the bourgeoisieto readjust,and to producene* strJctu.esand
new relationsof production lavouring the development of the capitalist
I r , T h i s u ' o u l db e a w a v o u ! o f R u s s e l l ' s p a r a d o x ,a w , a yo f a v o i d i n g r c i f y i n g i t a s t o r a i i z i n g
a

38

Institutional Psychotherap.v

economyas a whole (salarvdifferentials,wages,bargainingover conditions,

etc.). Thus one can seehow, in a sense,the subordinateinstitutionalobject
thar the Paltl'or the CGT (the CommunistTrade Llnion Federation)
representsas fir as the workinc class are concernedhelps to keep the
capitaliststructurein good repair.
On the other hand - and to explain this calls for a topologicalexampleof
some complexitl,- that same passiveinstitutionalobject,indirectly controlled bl the bourgeoisie,may give rise within itself to the developmentof
new processes
of subjectivation.This is undoubtedlythe caseon the smallest
scale,in the Partv cell and the union chapel.The lact that the working class,
once its revolutionarvinstinctshave been aroused,persistsin studyingand
getting to knou' itself through this developmentwithin a dependentgroup
crearesrensionsand contradictionsrrhich, though not immediatelvvisibleto
oursiders(not quoted in the pressor the ofFcialstatementsof the leaders),still
producea u'hoielange oflragmentedbut real subjectivation.
A group phantasyis not the sameas an individual phantasy,or anv sumof
indir,iduai phantasies,or the phantasvof a particular group.l2 Every individual phantasyleadsback to the individual in his desiringsolitude.But it
can happen that a particuiar phantasy,originatingwithin an individual or a
p.rrticulargroup, becomesa kind of collectivecurrenc.y,l3
put into circulation
and providing a basis for group phantasizing. Similarly, as Freud pointed
out, we pass lrom the order of neurotic structure to the stage of group
The group mar', for iustance,organize its phantasiesaround a
Jornnti.on.
leader,a-successluifigure, a doctor, or some such. That chosenindividual
pliiys the role of a kind of signifving mirror, upon r,r'hichthe collective
phantasy-makingis relracted.It mav appear that a particular bureaucratic
or maladjustedpersonalityis working againstthe interestsof the group,when
in lact both his personalityand his action are interpretedonlv in termsof the
eroup. This dialectic cannot be confined to the plane of the imaginary.
Incleed,the split between the tltalitaian ideal of the group and its various
partial phantasy processesproduces cleavagesthat may put the group in a
position to escapelrom its corporizedand spatializingphantasyrepresentation. IIthe processthat seems,at the levelof the individual authority, to be
,rver-determined
and hedgedin by'the Oedipuscomplexis transposedto the
level ofgroup phantasizing,it actuallyintroducesthe possibilitvofa revolutionarl, re-ordering.In eflect,identificationwith the prevailingimagesolthe
group is by no meansalways static, for the badgeolmembership often has
links with narcissisticand death instincts that it is hard to define. Do
'Ihis
r r.
is the dilTercncebetweenmv idea ofgroup phantasy and Bion's idea of the phantasyoftir
group.
r j . A n d , c o n r , e r s e l yi ,s n o r r h e i n d i v i d u a l o h a n t a s yt h e i n d i v i d u a t e ds m a l l c h a n g eo f c o l l e c t i r e
nhan tasv nroduction?

The Group and the Person 39

individualphantasiestake shapeand changein the group, or is it the other
wayround?One could equally say that they are nor fundamentallypart of
anythingoutsidethe group, and that it is a sheeraccident that rhey have
fallenbackon that particular'body'- an alienatingand Iaughablefiction,the
of an individual driven into solitude and anxietv preciselv
societl'misunderstands
and represses
the real body and its desire.In
eithercase,this embody'ingof the individual phantasyupon the group,or this
latching
on ofthe individual to the group phantasv,transfersonro rhe group
thedamagingeflectolthosepartial objecrs- objet
petit a'- describedby Lacan
asthe oral or anal object, the voice, the look and so on, governedby the
totalityof the phallic function, and constituting a threshold ol existential
realitythat the subject cannot cross.Hon'ever,group phantasizinghas no
'safetyrail'
to compare rvith those rhat prolect the libidinal instinctual
system,
and has to dependon temporary and unstablehomeostaticequilibria.Wordscannot really serveto mediate its desire; they operateon behalf of
thelaw.Groups opt for the sign and the insignia rather rhan for the signifier,
The order of the spoken rvord tips over into slogans. If, as Lacan savs, the
ation ol the subject resultslrorn one signifier relating to another,
thengroup subjectivity is recognizable rarher in a splitting, a Spaltung,the
of a sub-whole that supposedlyrepresentsthe legitimacy and
ty'olthe group
In other words, this remains a lundamentally precariousprocess.The
tendencyis to return to phenomena of imaginary explosion or phallicization
her than to coherentdiscourse.From this point ofview, apart from disinguishing
betweenindividual and group phantasy,one can alsodistinguish
t ordersofgroup phantasy:on the one hand, the basicphantasiesthat
dependon the subordinatecharacter of the group and, on the other, the
sitionalphantasiesconnectedrvirh the internal processofsubjectivation
corresponding
to various reorganizationswithin rhe eroup. trVeare led to
istinguishtu'o possibletypes ofobject: establishedinstitutions,and tranional objects.r+
With the first, the institution never sets out to face the
oltheinstitutionalobject,though it is obsessed
by it;just as rhechurch
itsGodand hasno wish to changehim, soa dominant classhaspou er and
not considerrr'hetherit might not be betterto give thar power to anyone
!lVith thesecond,on the other hand, a revolutionarymovementis a good
mpleof somethingthat keepsaskingwhetherit is right, whetherit should
totallytranslormingitself, correctingits aim and so on. Of courseall the
tutionalobjectsin a fixed societycontinueto evolveregardless,but their
tionis not recognized.One myth is replacedbl'another,one religionby
. t4. The notionofaniiltitulilnal lbjectiscomplementan to the'parr object'ofFreudian theory and
'transitional
object' as originally defined by D. W. !Vinnicott ,,c1.La Ps2chanaltu,5. Presses
de France, r95g)

40

Institutional Psychotherapv

zurother,iryhichmav result in a ruthlesswar and end in deadlock.Whena

collapses,bad moneydrivesout good,the gold
monetar! or economics-vstem
standardis replacedby basemetal, and the economyis convulsed.Similarly
when a marriage fails; it u,asbasedon a contract of a kind not fundamentally
different liom a banking contract, and there is no scopefor development,The
contracrcan be changedbv divorce, but that is only a legal procedureand
does r.rotfundamentallvsolve anything. Indeed the chain is snappedat its
weakestlink: the children are split in two w'ithout any thought of conse'
quencesin the sphereof the imaginarv.When a revolutionaryparty changes
theories,however, there is no logical reasonwhy it should lead to a tragedy,or
a religious \4'ar: the regirnen of the word still tries to readjust the old
formulationsto brins them into harmonv with the new,
To foster analysisand interventionin group phantas,v(including family
groups) would implv a considerationof preciselythesephenomenaof the
imaginary. Take another example:generationsof miners have worked in a
particltlal mine, and it has becomea kind of religion to them; one day, the
technocrats suddenly realize that the coal they produce is no longer profitable. This of coursetakesno accountof the e{Iecton the miners: thoseofa
certain age are told that they are to retire early, lvhile others are oflered
re-training schemes.Similar things happen in Africa, Latin America and
Asia, where peopleswho have had the samesocialorganizationfor thousands
of years are steamrollered out of existence by the intrusion of a capitalist
systerr interestedonly in the most e{ficientwavs of producing cotton oI
rubber. These are extremeexamoles,but thev are the losical extensionof a
rnultitude of situations - those of children, of w'omen, of the mad,
hornosexuals,ofblacks. In disregarding or failing to recognizesuch problerns
may be
of group phantasy,we createdisastersu,hoseultimate consequences
immeasurable.
Analt,sing the institutional object neans channelling the action of the
imasinzrtionbetweenone structureatrdanother;it is not unlikewhat happens
to an animal in the moultinq season.To move lrom one representation
oneself to anotherr though it may involve crises,at least retains continuity.
When an animal loses its coat it remains itself, but in the social order,
ren-rovingthe coat shatters the world of the imaginarv and annihilates
generations.When the group is spiit up, when it doesnot know the scopeofits
phantirsiesand has no control of then-r,it developsa kind of schizophrenic
action !r,ithin itsell: the phantasl' mechanismsof identification, and of thesell
operate all the more freely and independently as the function of the word as
collectiveutteranceis replacedby a sructural formation ofnon-subjec
utterances.While the group discoursesin a vacuum about its aims and
pul'poscs,identificationshal,ethe samekind of lreerein as theywould havein
a schizophrenicrvhosespeechis disconnectedlrom bodily representa

The Group and the Person 4r

andrr'hosr:
phantasl'world, lreed from reality, can opcrateon its own lo a
int of hallucinationand delusion,A group will end up by hallucinating
withitsphantasies
in just the sameway. If it is to interpret them, it will have
toresortto irrationalacts,wild gestures,suicidalbehaviour,play-actingolall
s, until thosephantasiescan find some means of becomingpresentto
'esand manifestingthemselvesin the order of representation.
I saidearlierthat the unconsciousis in direct contactrvith history.But onlv
certainconditions.The fundamentalproblemin institutionalanall,siscan
expressed
like this:is it absurd to think that socialgroupscan overcomethe
contradictionbetweena processol production
that reinforcesthe mechanisms
groupalienation,and a processof bringingto light the conscioussubject that
s and the unconscioussubject,this latter being a processthat graduallv
dispels
moreand more of the phantasiesthat causepeopleto turn to God, to
science
or to any othersupposedsourceofknowledge?In other words,can rhe
at once pursue its economic and social objectiveswhile allowing
ualsto maintain their own accessto desireand someunderstandinsof
r owndestiny?Or, better still: can the group lace the problem of its own
th?Can a group rvith a historicmissionenvisagethe end of that missionthe Stateenvisagethe withering awa1,of the State?Can revolutionary
esenvisage
the end of their so-calledmissionto lead the masses?
Thisleadsme to stressthe distinctionbetweengroup phantasyas it relates
dependent
groups,and the transitionalphantasyofindependent subject
Thereis a kind olphantasizingthat appearsin static societiesin the
of myths,and in bureaucratizedsocietiesin the form o[ roles.u,hich
ucesthe most wonderful narratives:'When I'm twenty-fiveI'll be an
r; then a coloneland later on a general;I'll get a medal when I retire;
I'll die . , .' But group phantasizingis somethingmore than this,because
includesan additional referencepoint that is not centredon a particular
ject,or on the individual'sparticular placein the socialscale:'l'r,e beenin
Frencharmy lor a long time; the French army has ahvaysexisted,it is
, so if I keep my place in the hierarchy, I too shall have somerhingof
eternal.This makeslife easierwhen I'm frightenedof dying, or when mv
calls me a fool. After all, I am a regimental sergeant majorl' The
titutionalobject underlving the phantasy of military rank ('I'm not
')
serr.es
to unfurl a range ofrelerencesofa homosexualnature that
idessocietl'witha blind and relativelyhomogeneous
body of peoplewho
ink lrom anv self-questioningabout lile and death, and who are ready to
e anv repression,to torture, to bombard civilian populationswith
lm and so on. The continuationin time of the institution at the level of
syis thusa kind ofimplicit supporrlor the denialofthe realityofdeath
the individuallevel. The capitalist controlling severaltrusts also draws
lrom this 'senseofeternity'. In his position at the rop ofthe hierarchl',

+2

Institutional Psychotherapy

he fulfils a kind of'priestlyfunction for thosebelow, ritualizing eternityand

coniuringaway death.He is the servantof God/Capital.Facedwith pain and
alraid of desire,the individual clingsto hisjob, his role in the family and the
other functionsthat provide alienatingphantasvsupports.In the dependent
group, phantasvmasksthe central truths ofexistence,but none the less,via
the dialecticofsignifiers,part objects,and the way theseintersectwith the
sequencesofhistory, it keepsin being the possibilityofan emergenceofthe
truth.
Would a group whosephantas) functionswere working rvell producethe
transitionalphantasiesofa subjectgroup?At [,a Borde,for instance,whena
group feelsthat it is getting somewhere,that it is achievingsomething,the
most thanklesstaskstakeon a quite di{ferentmeaning,evensuchtediousjobs
as taking up paving stones or working on an assemblv-line.At such a
mornent, people's positions in relation to one another, their individual
their peculiarst.vle,their way of speakingand so on, all take
characteristics,
you leel that you know people better and take more
a
new
meaningl
on
interest in them. In a psychiatric r,vardwhere an analytic processaiming to
established- though it never survives
producesuch an eflectis successfully
lor long everythinginhibiting or threateningin the differentiationofroles
can be doneaway with: everyonebecomes'oneofus'though that includesthe
whoie particularist folk-memory that that phrase implies. Absurd though
such folklorism may seem,it does not prvent the'senseof belonging'from
being eflective.It is a f;actthat ifa boy is to learn to read or to stop wettinghis
trousers)he must be recognizedas being'at home', being'one of us'. If he
crossesthat threshold and becomesre-territorialized,his problemsare no
ionger posedin terms of phantasy; he becomeshimselfagain in the group, and
'When shallI
managesto rid himselfof the questionthat had haunted him:
get to be there,to be part ol thd!, to be "one of them"?' As long as he failsin
that, his compulsivepursuit ofthat goal preventshis doing anything elseat
all.
T'l.risgetting to the limits of the imagination seems to me to be the
fundamental problem of setting up any management body that is not to be
technocratic,any massparticipationbody for whateverpurposethat is notto
be unhealthily rationalist. It is not a matter of an independentcategory:if
these phantasizing lormations are not explored anah'tically, they operateas
death-dealingimpulses.From the point when I set out to enjoy my mem'
bershipofthe Bowls Club, I can say that I am dead,in the senseofthe death
inherentin the eternityof Bowls Clubs. On the other hand, if a group letsme
short-circuitits action with a problematicthat is open to revolution,even
that group assuresme that revolution will certainly not save my life, or
provideanv solutionto certainsortsofproblem, but that its role is, in a sense,
precisel,vto prevent my being in too much of a hurry to run away from that

The Group and the Person 43

tic, then, most assuredly,the transitionalphantasylormationsof
groupwill enableme to make progress.
The demand lor revolution is not essentiallyor exclusivelyat the level of
goods;it is directed equally to taking account ofdesire. Revolutiontheory,to the extent that it keeps its demands solely at the level of
asingpeople'smeansof consumption,indirectlyreinforcesan attitudeof
ivity on the part of the working class.A communist socierymust bc
not with referenceto consumption, but to the desireand the goalsof
ind. The philosophicrationalismthat dominatesall the expressions
of
workers'movement like a super-ego ficstersthe resurgenceof the old
of paradisein anotherworld, and the promiseof a narcissisticfusion
theabsolute.Communist partiesare by way of having scientific'knowl'ofhow
to createa lorm oforsanization that would satisfythe basicneeds
all individuals.What a falseclaim! There can be socialplanning in terms of
izing production - though there still remain a lot of unanswered
ions- but it cannot claim to be able to giveaprioi answersin terms of the
objectives
ofindividualsand subjectgroups.
All of rvhichis just to say yet again that the ways to truth are, and will
nueto be,an individual matter. I realizethat what I am sayineherecan
interpreted
as an appealto 'respecthuman values'and other nonsenseof
kind. Such interpretationsare convenient,becausethey spare one the
ity of seekingfurther for an answer to the problem. I can hear some
saying,'There's a man who hasn't got over his experienceof the
nistPartyand ofthe groupusculesi5
he'sbeenin. But all he had to do
stopgoing!'Bravingridicule,however,I persistin declaringthat what is
issueis quite different. It is, first of all, at the core of the revolutionary
- not the war of u,ords,but the real strugglebeingwaged
themselves
guerrillas
and others.Either we fall into post-Stalinistthinking and come
grief,or we find.pnotherway and survive.
There are a lot of other things too - far more serious than wonderins
herone can work out some compromisebetweenthe bureaucratof the
mentand desire.Either the revolutionaryworkers'movement and the
will recover their speech via collectiwagentsof utterancethat will
that they are not caught up again in anti-productionrelations(as
asa work of analysiscan be a guarantee), or matters u.ill go lrom bad to
. It is obviousthat the bourgeoisieofpresent-dayneo-capitalism
are not
isieand are not going to becomeone: they are undoubtedlythe
t that history has ever produced. They will not find an effectiveway
They will keeptrying to cobble things together, bur alwal's too late and
'Groupuscules'
designate the ensemble of little groups lound on the left of the l-rench
Party in thr period leading up to r968, a pejorative c o n n o t a t i o n o f t h e P a r t y
but later assumedby the groups thcmselves

4+

Institutional Ps,vchotherapy

irrelevantly,as rvith aU their great projectsto help w,hattheir expertscovlv

describeas the'developingcountries'.
It is quite simple, then. Unless there is some drastic change,thingsare
trndo,btedly going to go very badly indeed,and in proporrionas rhe cracks
are a thousandtimesdeeperthan thosethat riddled the structurebeforer g3g,
we shall have to undergofascismsa thousandtimes more friehtful.

Psychiatryand Anti-Psychoanalysis'

-jAcquESBRocHIER:How did you personallyget involvedin what we

y call'the anti-psychiatrybusiness'?
LIx GUATTART:
\4tell,6rst olail, BasagliaandJervis came to l,a Bolde in
or '66, and had some articles published in the review Recherches.'fhen
there
arosenot so much a differenceof ideasas a di{Ierenceof style.They were
lot remotely interested in our experiments to reform institutional
otherapy.The situation in Italy was alreadyquite different,and their
werefar more revolutionary. Then there was the Engiish strain, with
ingand Cooper,who were also published \n Recherches.
They came to study
'alienated
on the theme of
organizedby Maud Mannoni and Recherches
hood'.Their break-awayfrom ordinary institutionshad very little in
eitherwith ours at La Borde. or with Maud Mannoni or with Lacan.
teron,thesedifferencesofstyle came to reveal more profound divergences.
mysellhavealso changed a great deal since that period.
1. e.;Jusnvhatis anti-.psychiatry?
,o.: Primarily a literary phenomenon,taken up by the mass media. It
lrom thosetwo cenres in England and ltaly, but its appearance
public interestin suchproblems,
ledthelact that therewas considerable
thecontextof the 'new culture' that was cominginto existence.But it must
admittedthat, up to now, all that has been written, or said, or done in
ncehas involved only a lew nurseswho were unhappy with the existing
ation and a few dozen psychiatrists: the real interest in anti-psychiatry
beenamong the general public.
Today, one ol the 'inventors' of anti-psychiatrv, Laing, is no longer
nectedwith it; he sayshe has neverusedthe term. Basagliabelievesit is a
ification that must be exposed. Nleanwhile, in France, it has become
ing of a iiterary and cinematic genre. Peopleearn a lot of money
ishinglittle bookswith titles like 'Never Again Will I Be a Psychiatrist',

AgainWill I Bea Nurse','NeverAgainWill I BeMad'. Groupuscules

formedin its wake,like Poulidor.

r. Somcviewseiicitedb,vJean-JacquesBrochier and published in lc,Vagalinc Lilliraire,a special
' L e M o u v e m en t d e s i d i e s d e M a i r
en t i r l e d
968',May t q76

+6

Institutional Ps-vchotheraPY

has marked
But what irasreally beenirnportant is the way ant'i-psychiatry
a beginning of awareness,not only in the generalpublic, but even amgng
,mental health workers', In my view, the discover,volthe link
p.of."..ionui
has been
betlveen ps-vchiatricrepressionand other forms of repression
repercussions
its
all
felt
having
far
lrom
u'e
are
and
significant,
.,]or*ourl,u
-vet.
has been paftl)'r'itiated bv certain schoolsof
However, that zrrvareness
a
it
good excuseto knock psychiatrv- leavingit to
who
found
psychoanaiysis
-be
a
undersroodthat we, with our little couches,cure peoplervithout laying
hand on thenr,without ever hurting anvbodv'
'68, in the sensethat NIay
t.-1.n.:Anti-psychiatrycan be connectedwith lv'Iav
';68
hospitals,like prisons,
Mental
*u, essentiallyan artack on institutions.
which, though
institutions
up
locked
people
rvereinstitutions for.keeping
in the middle of a ton'n, peopleliterally did not see'
r-rsually
r.c.: Doubts abor.rtprisonsand mental hospitalswere still very uncertainin
with friendslike
at the time having verv livelv discussiotls
i 968. I r.ernember
repressedthen
be
ing
militants
the
,,iai' Geismaror SergeJuly;we tried to see
criminalsin
poor,
the
was
su{Ieringwho
else
ason the samelevelaseveryone
ez \'Iarch
the
lormer
\'et
e'en
patients.
psl'chiat'ic
Katangais,2
the
gaol,
'Political
ipontun.i.t, ,"ho ,uerejoini.g up with the Maoists were saying,
prisoners,yes,and common law prisoners,ofcourse but not drug addictsl
they can be manipudangerous,
thev're
denoutrced,
musi
be
b'ug addicts
l"t.j by the police,'and so on. lVhen ia'etried to talk about so-calledpolitical
questionsin the samebreath as the problemsof madness,we were thought to
that surprisesno one.But
be eccentricif not positivelydangerous.Nowada-vs
with the settingup of the
point,
this
we
reached
that
after'68
time
ir was sorrre
'68 therewasalot
GIp:r anclother acti'ities of that kind. During the eventsof
the employers
and
universities
the
of uphea!al in psvchiatric circles but
'colleqes
thel'called
what
of
moyement
that
up
tIe1'set
soondealt rvith rhat:
'Garde-Fou','Les Cahierspour la Folie', and the
of psychiatry'.The GIA,a
,..t ull came on the scene much later, more or less in the wake of what
Foucar-rltancl Deleuzerveredoing in relation to prisons.l\lemory can play
',68 mav rvell have Iiberated all sorts of re"'olutionarY
funny rricks! N{ay
attitudes,but people'sminds were still full of the bad old ideas,and it took
drug
some time to open them up on problenrslike madness,homosexuality,
so
on'
and
liberation
women's
addiction,delinquency,prostitution'
'[
' K a t a n e a i s ' w a s t h e n i c k n a m eg i v e n t o t h e g a n g so f t o u g h sw h o u ' e n t i n t o t h e S o r b o n n e
z. he
cluringthestudelrtoccuPationandbeatupthestudentsandl'andalizedthebuildings'Thename
comes from the Katangan rebelsofthe Congoiesewar'
c. Grotto for Inlormation about Prisons
lVlentai Hospitals
4. Group for In{brmation about

Anti-Psychiatry and Anti-Ps.vchoanalysis 47

.y.-;.n.:What do you leel about institutionalpsychiatrytoday?
n.c.: wonderfuMt's beginningto collapse.At alr levels.physically,to starr
rvith:almost half of our psychiatrichospitalsare rvorkingat lessthan half of
their full capacity.Somehospitalsthar costmillionsto build are almostemDtv
(Mureaux for instance),which is partly why rhe cost per day of public
hospitalizationfor the mentally ill has risen so astronomically.It is also
coilapsingin people'sminds - no one believesin it any morel rhe policy of
community menralcare (breakingdown the psychiatricinstitutioninto
small
units, each catering lor an area with an averagepopulation of6o,ooo) has
at
best a-chievednothing, and at worst resurtedin an intolerabiepopulation
surveillance.This is speciallytrue ofchild psychiatry.
But why are the hospitalsempty?
1.-.J.a.:
r.o.: It's a complexphenomenon,with a number of causes.I can tell vou what
they are - in no speciai order ofimportance. First, lack ofconfidence - the
result,among other things,of the massmedia'scoverageof anti-psvchiatry.
Then, perhapsparrly as a result of rhe community policy, a lot is now done
outsidehospital.But I also think that the massiveuse of rranquillizershas
playeda significantrole. They are pluggednor onrv by ps'chiairists,
but by
generalpractitionersand eventhe more or lessspecializedjournals;
belorean
inlant has time to give its first cry, it is givena sedativeto makeit shut
up and
go to sleep.Hence the diminution, evenin somecasesthe disappearance,
of
someof the sympromsofsociarbreakdownthat usedto land peopleup ih.
psychiatrist'sor in the hospital.since about r955, chemo-therapy ",
has been
usedto put an end ro whar was calledhyperactivityin psychiatricirospitals.
It
keptout of hospitalnumbersofpeopleto whom a'chemicalstraitiacket,could
n_owbe applied at home. But no one realizedat firsiFhat-ihe ellEctsof all
this
would be. It was important ro go on building psychiaric hospitals,especially
sinceit helpedthe recoveryof the buirdingindustrv. somediparrements,itwa.s
boasted,now really had adequatehospital praces(though what this really
meantwas financingthe 'industrialization'of the building industry). But
lo
and behold,drugs had deflecteda large part oftheir ..gulu. clientele
away
fromthe hosp.itals,
and somepsychiatristsweredeterminedthat the hosoitals
shouldbe emptied.This led ro somequite seriousproblems,in poor areas,
for
instance,where the hospitalwas the major sourceof employment
1-1.a.:The hospiralsare emptying,and psychiatryno longerberieves
in irserf.
But if the hospitals were built to coniain and protect and lock away
the
insane,and psychiatrywas designedto care ror them, what is their po.i,ion
nolv?
r.c.: The luture solution, stilr far in the future for France, is
already
happeningin the USA. The moment someonefeelspeculiar,
or breaksa

48

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

He is stuffedwith
window, or takesdrugs, he is declaredto be schizophrenic'
(One wonders
another'
as
good
,.u,lquitiir.r., o, -.ihudone, one thing is as
of
complexities
myriad
the
to
better
Preserve
whetirerit might not have been
in a number of
closed
been
have
hospitals
psychiatric
The
the old nosolo"gyl)
being exercisedin
States,but that doesnot prevent psychiatricrePression's
of psych-iatric
in
systems
involved
other wa-vs. People can then become
control*ithoutu,"'y.ef..encetopsychiatricclassifications(tramps,down.
a great many neuroticsJand
and-outs,the old and so on). On the other hand,
'mad' under the old psvchiatric
as
even thoser+ho rvould have beendescribed
at all, lut -g.!de;go
classifications, no longer go through the hospitals
given tranquillizers'
and
by
doctors
home
at
uisi[d
are
or
psychoanalvsrs,
'raving lunatic' has becomea thing olthe past'.psychoanalyrhe
f
hougn
ir..
ticmadne"sscanbefioundalmosteveryr-l.here.Somepsychoanalystsmakethe
in a three-1'ear-old
ludicrous cla.imthat they can diagnoseschizophrenia
hospital- which is
psychiatric
the
trashes
nowadays
everyone
chilcl!Almost
notjust the
problem'
but it is r-rotenough.What is at issueis an overall
good,
'io.pltul,
lorms of
various
the
and
community'
the
but psychiaric care in
without finding
no"vadays
tongue
olthe
slip
a
make
can't
you
psychoanalr'srs:
Worst of all' someone
.orn. totul strangerinterpreting it to you mercilessll'
armoury'
psychratrrc
like M6nie Grdgoireis part of the new
saying, then, is.that the psychiatric institution has
1.-1.1,:\{hat ,vou're
vanished only to reappear in a more subtie way?
rne is that all the great
n.c.: Ycs, miniaturized. And rvhat also strikes
which used !o consistof a
repressiveorganizationslike schoolsor the army'
to
become lragmented and
siigle institu"tional whole, are now tending
very sooneveryone
mistake:
Illich's
is
this
,.uite.ed all over the place.I think
own school,his own
his
repression,
of
mini-instrument
his
own
will become
army. The suPer-egowill invade everything'
relationshipsof force'
ir ,f,. gr.^t ..piessive entities there were still real
every individual is
ones'
small
the
In
struggle'
of
possibilities
and there"fore
influencesand feelingsthat
bound hand and lbot by systemsofrelationships'
caseimpl'vother lorms of
there is no getting to g.lp, with, and which in any
,liberation,l As i see it, the policy of community psychiatry and.psychocorresponds to -the most
analysis (and the two are now closely related)
surveillanceand control'
sophisticatedtechnocratic lorms of population
find itself' And
eventually
will
Por*'er still seekins itself, but Power that
- aPart lrom
power
of
in,terrns
failure
a
still
ittougtl the community policy is
make a lresh start What
the fi-eldof child psychiatry it could quite easily
no policemen at street
could be *o.. p.if..t than a repressionwhich needs
via one's work' one's
unobtrusively
corners, but works permanentlYand

Anti-Psychiatryand Anti-Psychoanalysis 49
it is gradually
neighbours,everywhere?The same goeslor psychoanalysis:
gettingto be everywhere- at school,at home,on television.
3.-j.n.:But it's taken someknocks- especiallyfrom Deleuzeand yourself,in
your Anti-Oedipus.
r.c.: Don't you believeitl The psychoanalysts
have remainedquite impervious. Naturally enough: you try asking butchers to stop selling meat for
ideologicalreasons- or to becomevegetarians!Besides,from the consumer's
point ofview psvchoanalysisworks. It works verv well indeed,and people
keep coming back for more, It makes senseto pay a lot for anything so
eflective- rather like a drug. And it raisesone a fraction in the social scale,
which has a certain attraction, too. Anti-Oedipas
was barely noticed. What is
quite funny is that, when the book came out, the PsychoanalyticalSociety
recommendedpeoplejust to ignore it, and the whole thing would blow over.
Which is preciselywhat happenedl No, the most tangible e{Iectof Anti-Oedipus
was that it short-circuitedthe connectionbetweenpsvchoanaiysis
and the
left.
\4'hat strikes me is that the two chief victims of the critique of
1.-.J.e.:
institutionsin the past lew years have beenour two great beardedfathers,
N{arx and Freud. A lot of people have attacked Marx. But you and Gilles
Deleuzehave made a specialassaulton Freud - becausethe institution of
psychoanalysis,
in whateverlorm, l.rFreud.
r.c.: \'es, it is Freud - but in Franceit is alsoLacan. Psychoanalysis
came to
France very late, when men like Lagache or Boutonnier arrived at the
universitl',Belorethe w'arpsychoanalysis
barelyexistedin France.But it has
caught up since then. It had tremendousresistanceto overcome,but was
finally acceptedeverywhere,in Sainte-Anne,in all the laculties;evengeneral
publishersare pouring it out. In other countries,on the other hand, the
Freudianmovementhas beendead lor ten years.In the USA they still talk
aboutJung,but it's onl.vpart o[their lolklore,Iike psychedelicmassageor Zen
Buddhism.One might think the samething will happenin France.I doubt it.
In Francethe Freudian establishmenthas had a great new leaseoflife rvith
Lacanism.Lacanismisn'tjust a re-readingof Freud; it's somethingfar more
despotic,both as a theoryand an institution,and far more rigid in its semiotic
subjectionofthosewho acceptit. In fact,it could easilylead to a resurgence
of
psychoanalvsis
all over the world, starting with the United States.Not only
hasLacan comeout ofhis ghetto,but I think it is quite on the cardsthat he or
his successorsmay one da.v manage to set up a real Psychoanalytical
International.
I think in future. Lacanism will come to be seenas distinct lrom Freudianism.Freudianismwas defensivein its attitude to medicine,to psychiatry,

50

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

to the academic world. Lacanism, on the colltrary, is offensive;it is a

combatant theorr..In this connection,it is important to seeto what extent tt
has influencedAlthusserism,and the eflectit has had on structuralismas a
whole, especiallybecauseofits conceptofthe siglifier. Structuralismwould
certainl;' never have existed' in the form in which we know it, without
Lacanisrn. The polr,er and the a|nost religious authority of structuralism
would not have been possible but for the Lacanians' introduction of a
mathematico-linguisticconceptof the unconsciousthat tends essentiallyto
divide desirelrom realit!. To believethat desirecan only be based(symbolically) on its orvn impotence,its own castration,implies a completeset of
political and micro-politicalassumptions.
beenset up - Lacanism?
1.-3.n.:So, accordingto vou, a new institurionhas
the prototype of new
E.c,: Yes. A testing-ground,an advance technolog.v,
lorms of power.I t is rvonderful to succeedin totally subjectinganotherperson,
to hold hirn bound hand and foot, financialh" emotionally,without even
having the trorrble of making anv attempt at suggestion,interpretationor
uppur.n, domirtation.The psychoanalvstof today doesn'tsay a word to his
paiient, Sucha systemofchannellingthe iibido has beenachievedthat silence
one is remindedolthoseideal lorms of teachingin which
is all that is neecled.
the m;rsterno longer had to sav anything, but merely to move his head (the
a divinity who
Latin nutus,,anod" was enough* and he then becamea numen,
nodded to indicateapprobation).
didn't talk of Lacan so much, but of Freud- and in
1,-1.e.:In Anti-Oedipus,l'ou
dusting offhis statueyou left very little of it standing.
r.c.: That was not deliberatel we advanced by stagesand gradual re'
touching, but ol course,as the re-touchingproceeded,the inevitable hap\\rerever)'much bound up
pened.Br-rtour objectionsto Freud in Anti-Oedipur
w i t h o u r o b j e c t i o n st o L a c a n i s t n
ts not this nervlorm of power)'oti
1.-1.n.:But what vou object to in ;1nti-Oedipus
seein l-acanism,but oedipus itselt,the very foundationof Freudianism..{nd
when the foundationscrumble, we all know what happens'
You rvouldsa),that we are witnessingan inverseevolution:the psychiatric
institution is rveakening,while the psychoanalyticinstitution is gaining
strengthin a new lorm ofPower.
is that psvchiatrydoesnot \\,ork,whcreaspsvchoanalvsis
r.c.:The differer1ce
works wonderfully.So wonderfullvthat it might evensucceedin resurrecting
sornesectorso{'psychiatryone oftheseda1'sl

Mary Barnes,or Oedipus in Anti-Psychiatryr

In r965, a community of some twenty peoplewas formed around Ronald

Laing. They establishedthemselvesin Kingsley Hall, an old building in a
London suburb that had, to quote Joseph Berke, 'a long and honourable
historvasa centrelor socialexperimentand radicalpoliticalactivity'.For five
years the pioneers of anti-ps,vchiatryand patients making 'a career' as
schizophrenicswere to explore together the world ol madness.Not the
madnessof the mental hospital,but the madnesseachof us has within us, a
madness'"vhichwas to be liberated in order tc remove inhibitions and
svmptomsof all kinds.At Kingsley Hall thei,abolished,or tried to abolish,all
divisionof rolesamong patients,psychiatrists,nursesand so on. No one had
an,vofficial right to give or receiveorders or to lay down any rules. Kingsley
Hall rvas to become an enclave of lreedom lrom the prevailing normality, a
b a s el o r t h e c o u n t e r - c u l t u rm
e ovement.2
The aim of rhe anri-psychiatristsis to get beyond the experimentsin
community psychiatry; in their view these were so many more relormist
projects,and did not really questionthe repressiveinstitutionsand traditional lrameworkof psychiatry.MaxwellJonesand David Cooper,3whoweretwo
ofthe principal instigatorsoftheseendeavours,were to take an activepart in
the life of Kingsley Hall. Anti-psl,chiatrycould rhus have its own tabularasa,
so to say, its organlessbody, in which every part ofthe house- cellar, rool,
kitchen,staircase,quiet room - and everyepisodein the collectivelife would
function as a cog in a great machine, drawing each person beyond his
immediateself and his own little problems,either towardshelpingeveryone
else,or towards a descentinto himselfby a (sometimesdizzying) processof
regression.
This enclave of freedom, Kingsley Hall, was besiegedon all sides,the old
world oozing in at every crack: the neighboursprotestedabout the noiseat
night. local kids threw stonesat the windows,the relativeswere readv at the
t. Le Noutel Obsentateur,
zB N{ay r 973.
z. Cf . counter'c'ultun:Tlv crealiondan A lrcrruriue
socier-y,
ed..J. Berke , pere' owen and Fire Books,
r9 7 0 .
3. David Cooper, PychiatryandAntipttilatry, Tavistock, I 967.

ffi-ar.

\2

Institutional PsYchotheraPv

inmate to the merltal hosslightest pretext to cart o{f any over-excited

pital.'
actually came lrom '"t'ithin;though
But the worst threat to Kingsley Hall
still went on silently interiorizing
lree liom identifiableconstrai;ts, people
one could escapethe simplistic
no
furthermore,
ar-rcl,
.'*iui ,.prar.ions;
(father,mother and child) that
recluctio' of all things to the sameold triangle
the boundsofnormalconsidered
are
what
confinesall situationsthat exceed
psvchoanalysis',.
olOedipal
it,vwithin the mould
at Kingsley Hall, or no.t?lnterShould there be ,onl. *ini*ul iiscipline
' Aaron Esterson' leader of
necine porver stl'ugglespoisoned the aimosphere
a biography of Stalin^underhis
with
seen
(he
u'as
the'harci-line'tendencv
was eventuallvforcedout'
arm, whereasLaing tendedto quote from Leninl)'
right system
to
difficuli for the enterprise discoverthe
;;;;r." ther.ri*t'as still
and the
television
press'
the
worse'
of self-regulation'Then' to make matters
the object of
became
Hall
Kingsley
in
intellectualrrendiesnuuni.Jto.loin
a kind of star of
One of tht in*utt', Mary Barnes' became
jealousie
""ir-"-fr[ii.i,y.
-*uan..r,
H . r . " p . rwhich
i . n c e smade
a t K i nher
g sthe
l e vfbcus
H a l l hofa implacable
vebeen,describedir.rabookbylvlary
It is an astonishinglycandid
Barnes and her p.y.ttiutti't, Joseph Berke's
'mad desire' and a
to free
confession;it is also both an admirable attemPt
a brilliant voyage of discor"en'
work of neo-behaviourist dogmatism,6 both
andaworkcl{.unrepentant|a"nriliaiisminlinewiththeoldpuritantradition'
\,'laryBarnes-thenradwoman-showsinafewchaptersofautobiography
hiddenfaceof English-speaking
what no anti-psvchiatristhasevershown:the
anti-psYchiatrY.
labelleda schizophrenic though
Mary Barnesis a lbrmer nursewho was
literally
quite
hysteric' She took
she might equally have been classedas a
'regressioninto
Her
madness'
of a Journey' into
l;irg;; r..o*-.r,dution
'going dow n'
pilot, her years of
infanc.v'was rather in the st-vlelf a kamikaze
from starvation'The wholeplace
leadingher on occaslonto the vergeofdeath
hospital or not? There *'as a violent
,"^, ir-r^. r-rProar- should she be"setttto
to note that evenwhen shewas in
crisisin the communit-v'But it is important
she would only relate to a few
easy;
not
stiil
a phase of upsw'inglnalters were
and nrysttctsmin whom"she massivelyinvestedher farnilialism
;;;i;,
'provocattve
c o n r p a r e dt o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n I t a l r ' r v h e r el a r l e s s
4 . 1 h i s , h o w e v e r ,w a s n o t h i n g
is still being
repression
ferocious
reallv
where
Germanl"
lt",
experiments were stoppect,o',,iill
( s o z i a l i s t i s c h epsa r j e n t e n k o l l e c r i vi n) H e i d e l b e r g( s e ep 6 ? ,
u . l d o g u i n . , r h e , n e m b e r so f . t h es p K
note3).
MacGibbon & Kee' I97t'
lvladnaru'
a-founut'Thruugh
.,r."Mory
Borrrr' Tun.Accountso-f
that reduced psychologv to the
century
this
of
rhe-b.ginning
irom
theory
a
6. Beliaviourism is
si the
s
t i n l u l i a n d t h e r e s p o n s eo
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
b
e
n
*
'
e
e
n
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s t u d v o f b e h a v i o r r r d, e f i n c d a s t h e
of
rends to reduce all hunran problems to Pr"biems
subject. fhe neo-bchaviourism of today
rhe socio-political problems o[power at everv level
ignoring
inlormarion,
and
conrmunicarion

N{ary Barnes,or Oedipus in Anti-psychiatry

53
mainly Ronnie (Laing), whom sheworshippedas a god, andJoe(Berke),
who
becamear onceher iather, her mother and'herspiritual lover.
S h e t h u s s e t u p h e r o w n r i t t l e o e d i p a l g r o u n d r v h i c hc a u s e dg r e a t
repercussionsin all the paranoiac tendenciesof the household.
H"er pleu.u..
centredin the painful awarenessthat never ceasedto torment
her ofall the
harm she was doing around her. SheattackedLairrg,sset_up,
eventhough it
was so importarr ro her. The more guiity she feir rhe
more she puniihed
herselfandthe worseher statebecame,causingpanic reactions
in the group
she had reconsrituredthe vicious circle of fariiiiarism - but
this time"there
rlventv people involved, which naturallv multiplieclthe devasta_
;;;: ""..
she becarnea babl'again, and had ro be red from a bottre.
she wandered
naked,coveredin shit; shepisse.d
in other people'sbeds;she brokethings up;
or she would''t eat and wanted to let herselfdie. She tyrannir.o"Jo.
d..ri,
shestoppedhim lrom going out, and shepersecutedhis wife
until, Jne da1r.he
could sta'd it no longer, and punched her with his fist.
one is inevitably
remindedof the rvell-knownmethodsof the psychiarric
hospitalrJoeBerke
askedhimselfhow it could happen that a group of peopre
whoseobj"ect
was to
cle-mystifi'rhesocialrelationsof disturbedfamiliescould
reach the point of
b e h a v i n gl i k ej u s t s u c ha l a m i l y .
Fortunately, Mary ts1nes was an exceptiona.lcase * not
everyoneat
-Kingsley Hall behavedlike herr But she undoubtediy posed
the .eal problems. How can we be so sure rhat understanding, ioi'e
and ail tt.,. ltt.,.,
christian virtues, cornbinedwith a techniqueof n-rystical
regression,can of
themselves
exorcisethe devilsolOedipal madness?
Laing is cerrainly one of the peopli mosr deepli,comrnitted
ro the enrer_
priseof demolishingpsvchiatry.He hasbrokendorvn
the,"vails
of the hospital,
but one gets the impressionthat he remains the p'soner
o|other walls still
standingwithin himself;he has ror yet managed-rorree
himselfof rhe worst
constraint'the most dangerousof all double binds,T
that of what Robert
castel has called 'psychoanalvsm'- with its obsessronrvith
significant
lnterpretation,its 'false-bottomed'representations
and shallowaepit s.
Laing believedthat the neurotic a.lienationcould be dereated
by centring
the anal,vsis
on the famill,, and its internal ,k'ots,. In his,",iew,.ue.ythin[
startsfiom the family, yet he wanrs to get away rrom it. He
would like us tJ
becomeo'e with the cosmos,breakout of the humdrum
ofeverydaylire.But
his method olreasoning cannor detach the subjectfrom
the ramirialgrasp:
thoughhe seesit only as the starting point, it cut.hes up
wirh him ag-ainat
e'ery turn' He tries ro resol'e the difficulty by taking refuge
in rn .i.t..r,stylemeditation,but that cannot long withstand rhe intrulion
of capitalist
; A d o u b i eb i n d i s a t w o i o r d ,c o n t r a d i c r o r yc o n s r r a i n to c c u r r i n gr n r h c c o m m u n i c a r i o n s
between
a p a t i e n ra n d h i s f a m i l v w h i c h c o n f u s e sh i m t o r a l l v .

54

Institutional Psvchotherapy

subjectivity u'hose methods are nothing if not subtle. He does not take
Occlipus seriously enough: rvithout a frontal attack on this yital tool of
one can make no decisivechangein the economyof
capitaiist repressiot-i,
C e s i r eo. r , t h e r e f o r et.h e s t a t u so f m a d n e s s
concerned rt'ithfluxes- the flux of shit, of
Nlary Barnes'sbook is constantl,v
urine, ol'n-rilk,of paint - but, signifrcar]tlv,it barely mentions the flux of
moltev. \te never discoverquite holv the set-upoperatesfrom this point of
view. Who controlsthe money,who decideswhat to buy, who getspaid?The
commur-rityseemsto live on air: \{ary's brother Peter,who is undoubtediy
caught up in a lar deeperschizoprocessthan she is, cannotat first copewith
t h e b o h e n r i a nl i l e s t y l e o f K i n g s l e v H a l l . I t i s t o o n o i s r ' ,t o o m e s s v ,a n d
anvhow he wants to remain fit {br rvork.
him - he nzustcome and live with her at Kingslev
But his sisrertorr.Ilents
Hall. Ht:rs is the unremitting proselytismof regression you'll see,You'll
to
the end of your
you'll
get
paint,
makelour journe1,,1ou'Il be able to
He feelsno
rvay.
in
a
different
is
disturbing
madness
Peter's
Bur
madness.
enthusiastnfor rushing into this sort oladventure. This nrav weli rellectthe
dilferencebenveena real schizophrenicjournevand a lamilialist regression
'human
along pett,vbourgeoislines. The schizois not so much attracted to
warn)th'. His concernsare elsewhere,among the more de-territorialized
fluxes- the flux of miracie-workingcosmicsigns,but aisoof monetarvsigns,
T h r s c h i z ou n d e r s t a n drsh ev a l u eo f m o n e v- e v e ni f h e u s e si t i n c u r i o u sw a Y s
-just as he understandsevervother realitl'.He doestrotplav at beinga baby.
MLrneyis to hirn a means of rei'erencelke anv other, and he needs as manv
refere.ce svstemsas he can get, precise\vin order !o preser'e his a\oolhess.
For him, exchangeis a meansof avoiding interchange.In short, peter told
them to buggeroirwith their interl-ering
e'croachi'g conrmu'ity - he wanted
no such threat to his particular relationshipto desire.
N{ary'slamilialistneurosisis somethingvery d.ifferent:
shervascontinually
settingLrplittle farnilial territorialiries,in a kind of 'ampire greedlor ,human
*'armth'. she attached herself to the other's image: fbr insrance,she had
previouslyaskedAnna Freud to take her into anaiysis,but in lrer nrinclwhar
that meant was that she and her brother would move in with Anna Freud
and becomeher children. She set out to do rhe same thins with Ronnie and

Jo..
Familialism means magically denying the social realitv, avoiding all
connectionwith real fiuxes.All that remains possibleis dreaming, and the
e'ciosed hell of the conjugo-familialsystem.or even,in momenrsof jntense
crisis,a iittle urine-soakedcornerto retreatto, alone.This was N'IaryBarnes's
rnode of operation ar Kingslev Hall, as an apostleof Laingian therapv, a
revolutionaryof madness,a professional.
Her confessions
teach us more than we would learn from readinga dozen

Mary Barnes,or Oedipus in Anti-psychiatry

55
textbooksol anti-psychiatry.In them we can see rrow the after-effects
or'
'psychoanalysm'
dog the methodsof Laine and his lriends.
From the early Freud of studies
onH2steria
to the most up-to-datestructural
analysts,all psychoanalyticalmethod always consistsin narrowing
every
situationdown by meansof threesilting processes:
Interpretation:a thing must arwaysmean some!hingother than itself.The
truth is neverto be lound in the direct experienceoffoices and relationships,
but only byjuggling with cluesand significances;
Familialism: rhose signilying clues can essentiallybe boiled do\4,n
ro
lamilial representations.
To discover'*'hatthel are calls for a regression,in
which the subject is led to 'rediscor.,er'
his childhood. which means irr
practicean 'impotentized'representationof childhood,a childhoodas
memor1'arrdas rn1'th,childhoodas a refuge,as negatirlgthe intenseexperiences
of
the present.and thereforewith no possiblerelaiion to what the subject's
childhoodwas really like in positiveterms;
Transference:as the interpretativereductionand the familialistregression
proceed,desireis re-esrablished
in a drasticallvreducedspace,a mlserable
little area of identification (rhe analyst's couch, his waiching eye,
his supposedlv- attenti'e ear). since the rules ol the game demand
that
whateveris presentedmust be reducedto termsof interpietationand
fatherand mother-inrages.all rhat remains is to reduce the signifying apparatus
itself so that it only functionsin relation to a singleterm: the
sitenceoltte
analvst, against which ail questions come
up against a blank wa[. The

psvchoanalyticar
rransference,
rikea kind oichurnior creamingoffth.r.dii,
of desire'leavesthe patientdangring
i.
passion
rvhich,thoughlessdangerous";;ig;;inothingness, a narcissistic
thanRussianroulette,
readsifsuccessful to thesamesortolirreuersibre
fixationon unin",po.,"nt
detailswhichends
by'withdrawing
him fromall other.o.iufinr..i_.rr,r.
We havebeenawarefor a longti,n.
tfrri-ifr...
badlywith the mad:their.interiret;;;;;;l;;sestir...liting.processesr,r,ork
are toodifrerentfrom
theprevailingsocialcoordina,...
n,ui^i rrrsri., nt,, instead
of rejecting
thismethod,theytriedto improve
theprocesi, ii o.o.. ro makethem
more
tn:.itent interpretation
of theanalyticiCte_a_tcte
was
:5::i::
replaced
by a
co'ectrve and noisv_ interpretarion,
a kind of delirium ;;;;il;;:r:
Certainli,themethodwuseflectiue,in
"f
;';;';;y,'""
longermerely
a kind of
mirror-game
berween
thewordsof thepatientani th. ril.n..
of
the
analvst,
it
introduced
objects,movemenrs
and a certainbal;

g."u,,..g..,,ron;il:,:i:::ffi:,tJli:J::
+"ilil;'i;;"*',
l..*f"l":g

Dernga c.ocodi.le,bit her, squeezed

her, roted f,e, ^bout in her bed _
ar, of
which an ordinary psychoanalyst
*oufA'U.rnfit.fu ,o Oo.
A breakrhrough,apparentlv _
they *,... on'iti

entirely
n.* pru*i.,
anew
semiotic,
rrrl."g ^*"il#il:f:il:,ffi,l:

56

Institutional Psychotherapy

of'signihcanceand interpretation. But no. Each time, the psychoanalvst

pulled himself togethragain, and brought back the old lamilialistpoints of
reference.And he becamethe prisonerof his ou'n game:whenJoe Berkehad
to leave the house Marv did all she could to stop him. Not merelv was the
analysisinterminable- the sessionbecameso as welll He had to display real
anger in order to qet away liom his patientjust lor a lew hours, to attend a
meetingon the Vietnant wal'.
In the end, nothing escapedthe interpretativeinfection.Paradoxically,it
w.asMar,v w ho was the first to break out of the circle- by her painting. In fact,
within months she had become a well-known painter.EYet, even then,
interpretationstill held swa,v:Mary lblt guiltv over attendingdrawing classes,
becauseher mother's cherishedhobbl' was painting, and she would be
reserltfuiif she iearnt that her daughterpainted bettertlran shedid. Nor r,r'as
'Now. with all thesepaintingsyou havethe penis,
the paternalsideneglected:
the power of the lamily. Your-father feelsvery threatened.'
With touchingapplicatiorr,Mary setout to absorball the psvchoanalvtical
claptrap. She stood out like a sore thumb in the comnrunitv atmosphereof'
Kingslev Hall: she would not talk to just anyone.She refusedother people
becauseshe wanted to be sure that whoeverwas caring for her was fully in
accord with Ronnie's ideas.'When I got the idea of a breast,a safebreast,
.Joe'sbreast,somewhereI could suck, yet not be stolen from myself,there was
no holciingme . . . Joe. putting his finger in my mouth, was to me saving,
stealing
"Look, I can come into you but I'm not controllingyou, possessing,
'
y o u ,"
ln the end, the psychoanalysthimself was overwhelmedby the inter'interpreted
pretativemachinehe had helpedto setgoing.He admitsit: Marv
everything that was done lor her (or for anyone else for that matter) as
therapy .. . II'tlie coal was not deliveredwhen ordered,that was therapv.
And so on, to the most absurd conciusions.'Butthis did not stopJoe Berke
from continuing to strugglewith his orvn interpretations,whosesole object
'.
was to fit his relationship with Mary into the Oedipal triangle: . . By
1966. . . , I had a pretty good idea of what and s'ho I was lor her when we
were together. "Mother" took the lead when she was Mary the baby.
"Father'' and "brother Peter" vied for secondplace' In order to protect my
own senseof realitv, and to help Mary break through her rveb of illusion, I
always took the trouble to point out rvhen I thought lvlary was using me as
someoneelse.'But he neverfound it possibleto unravel the web completely.
N,laryhad got the whole householdcaught up in it.
. ne could
B . H e r e x h i b i t i o n s i,n C r e a t B r i t a i n a n d a b r o a d ,b r o u g h th e r a c o n s i d e r a b l cee l e b r i t y O
say quite a lot about rhis kind ofrecovery via Art Bnl, which involves launching a mad artist upon
the pu blic like a stagestar, firr the bene6tofthose who moun t the exhibi tions.The essenceofmad art
is that it lalls outside ordinary conceptsofthe author and his or her work.

N{ary Barnes,or Oedipus in Anti-Psychiatry

57
If we look at rhe rechnique of regressioninro babyhood, and at the
transference,we see that, as developedin a community, their tendencyto
create 'de-realization'was greatlv multiplied. In the traditional analytical
encounter)the one-to-onerelationship,the artificial and limited natureofthe
w'ay the sessionis organizedestablishesa kind of barrier to hold back the
excessesof the imagination. At Kingsley Hall, it was a real death that
confrontedMary Barnesat the end of each of her
Jour'eys', and the whole
householdbecamecaught up in equally real grief and su{rering.So much so
that Aaron Estersonwas driven back to the old methods of authority anci
suggestion:N{arv was literally starving herselfto death, and he firmly ficrbade
h e r t o c o n t i n u eh e r f a s t .
Someyearsbelorehand,a catholic priesthad equally firmly forbiddenher
to masturbate,telling her, so she said, that it was an evengraversin than to
sleeprvith a boyfriend.This, too, was completelysuccessful.
But, surely,this
return to authority and suggestionis the inevitableaccompanimentof such a
techniqueoftotal regression.Suddenly,sheis turned away from the very edge
of death bv a 'policeman-father'materializing lrom the shadows. Tiie
Imaginary, especiallythat of rhe psvchoanalvst,
is no sort ofdefenceaqainst
socialrepression:on tlie contraryJit unconsciouslyinvitesit.
one of the most valuable lessonslrom this book is perhapsthat it shows
horv illusory it is to seekto rediscoversheer,unmixed desirebv settineoffto
find knots buried in the unconsciousor hidden cluesofi'terpritutionlTh...
is no magical efrect whereby the transferencecan disentanelethe real
micro-politicalconflicts thrt imprison people,no mystery, no other r'orld
behind this one. There is nothing to discover in the unconscious:the
unconscious
hasstill to be consrrucred.Ifthe oedipus in the transference
fails
to resolvethe familial oedipus, it is becauseir remainsprofoundlyattachedto
the lamilializedindividual.
Alone on the couch or in a group, in a planned regression,the ,normalneurotic' (you and I) or the psychiatrist'sneuroric(who is 'mad') continues
over and over again to demand the oedipus. psychoanalysts,
whoseentire
training and practice have filled them to rhe eyeballswith the reductionist
drug olinterpretation, can do no other than reinlorcethis flattenins-outof
desire:translerenceis a techniquefor dispracingthe investmenrsoidesi.e.
Far lrom moderatingthe rush towardsdeath, it seemsactuallv to accelerate
it, gatheringtogetherthe'individuated' oedipal energiesas in a cyclotron,in
whatJoe Berke calls 'the vicious spiral of punishment-anger-guilt-punishment'. It can only lead to castration, renunciation and sublimation - a
shoddykind ofasceticism.The objectsofcollectiveguilt succeedone another,
accentuatingthe self-destructive,
punitive impulsesby couplingthem with a
realrepressioncomposedofanger,jealousyand fear.
Guilt becomesa specificlorm of the libido - a capitalist Eros - when it

58

Institutional Psychotherapy

entersinto conjunctionwith the de-territorializedfluxesofcapitalism.It then

findsa new u,ayout, a novelsolution,of the limitationsimposedby the familv,
the mental hospital,psychoanalysis.
I shouldn't havedoneit, what I did was
wrong, and the more wrong I feelit to be, the more I want to do it, becauseit
makesme exist in the intensityzoneof guilt. However,that zone,insteadof
being cmbodied,linked to the body of the subject,his ego, his family, takes
possession
of the institution: fundamentally,the real bossat Kingsley Hall
was Mary Barnes.And she knew it. Everything revolvedaround her. But
whereasshewas onlv playing at Oedipus,the otherswere tied hand and foot
in a collectiveOedipalism.
One day.JoeBerkedescribesfinding her coveredin shit and sobbing:'You
have to hand it to Mary. She is extraordinarily capable of conjuring up
evervone'slavourite nightmare and embodying it for them.' At Kingsley
Hall, then, the translerencewas no longer containedby the analyst- it was
getting ar'va1,in all directions and becoming a threat even to the
psychoanalysthimself. At that moment the ties of analvsiswere almost
broken lbr good, and the desiring intensities,the 'partial objects',almost
{bllowed their own lines of force and ceasedto be dogged by svstemsof
interpretation as correctly codified b1' the social grids of the 'dominant
reality'.
Why did Berke make such a desperateattempt to reunire rhe scattered
multiplicity of Nlary's 'experiment' with dissolvingher ego and attempt
to Iet her neurosisbreakthrough?Why rhisreturn to the polesof the family, to
the unity of the person, preventing N{ar1,from opening out to a whole social
field outside herself which might have proved so rewarding? 'The initial
processof her coming togetherwas akin to mv trying to put togethera jigsaw
puzzlewithout having all the pieces.Of thosepieceswhich wereabout, many
had had their tabs cut off and their slots barricaded.So it was nigh on
impossible to tell what went where. The puzzle, of course, was Mary's
emotional life. The piecesu,ereher thoughts,her actions,her associations,
her dreams,etc.'
How can it be proved that the solurionlor Mary Barnesreallv lay in the
direction of an infantile regression?Or that the origin of her problems rose
from disturbancesor blockagesin the communications svstemsof her family
when shervasa child? Why not take a iook at what was going on elsewhere?In
fact, it can be seenthat all the doors opening to the world outside were firmly
shut against her when she tried to go through theml consequently,what she
found outside was almost certainly a familialism even more repressivethan
that of her childhood experience. Perhaps the unfortunate Mr and Mrs
Barnes were only unconsciouslyreflecting the violent storm ofrepressionthat
was going on outside. Mary had not become'fixated' at her childhood - she

Mary Barnes,or Oedipusin Anti-Psychiatry 5g

had never lound the way outl Her desirefor a real wav out was too powerful,
too demandingto yield to any externalcompromises.
The first trouble started at school.'Schoolwas very dangerous.,She sar
paralysed,terrified on her chair; shefought with her reacher.,Most thingsat
schoolworried me . . .' She only pretendedro read, to sing,to draw - yet her
desire was to be a writer, a journalist, a painter, a doctor. One day it was
explainedto her that all this was a way of wishing she could be a man. ,I lelt
ashamedthat I wanted to be a doctor. I know this shamewas bound up,- and
here the interpretationismgets going - 'with the enormousguilt I had in
connectionwith my desireto be a boy. Everythingmasculinein myselfmust
be hidden. buried in secrer.'
Priestsand policemenof everykind were usedto make her leelguilty about
everything and nothing, and especiallyabout masturbating. When she
becameresignedto being a nurserather than a doctor andjoined the army, it
was yet another dead end. At one moment she wanted to go to Russia,
becauseshe had heard that there,'women with babiesand no husbandswere
quite accepted'.When she determined to enter the convent, there were
doubts as to her religiousfaith: 'What broughr you into the Church?, No
doubt the priestsrvereright - her wish for sanctity was suspect.Finally she
ended up in the m.entalhospital, and even there she was prepared to do
something, to dedilate herselfto others. One day she broughr a bunch of
flowersto a sisterin the Nurses'Home, and heardherselfsaving,,you should
not be herel' There seemedno end to the social traumas) the beating she
received.Having becomea nurse) she was told she could not study for a
higher qualification.
From the first, what interestedMary Barneswas not the lamily - it was
society.But everythingbrought her back to the family; sad to sav,evenher life
at Kingsley Hall! since the lamilialistinrerprerationwas rhegame they liked
playingthere,and sincesheloved them so much, shewas ready to play it with
them. And how well she played it! The real analyst at Kingsley Hall was
hersellrshe got the fullest mileageout ofall the neurotic possibilitiesofthe
project,all the underlying paranoiaof her Kingsley Hall lather and mother,
Indeed, Marv, the missionary,may well have contributed to helping the
anti-psychiatriststo recognizethe reactionaryimplicationsoftheir psychoanalvticpostulates.

Money in the Analytic Exchange 6 r

Money in the Analytic Exchange'

Money lunctionsas a misleadingequivalent,in the sensethat the value that it

representsor crystallizesdependson the positionone occupiesin the production system.To thosewielding power in a systembasedon the extractionof a
surplus-valuemoney meanssomethingquite diflerentfrom what it meansto
thosesellingtheir labour. It crystallizesboth a way of organizingexploitation
and a svstemfor disguisingthe classstruggle.I t determinesnot only people's
structuralpositionsu'ithin production,but alsothe natureofthe productions
encodedin the system.
The contentofthe capitalistencodinghas changedas and when there has
beena reduction ofprofit leveisin a whole seriesofsectorsolproduction. The
State has been forced to take over from private capitalism, in the system of
national insuranceand pensions,for instance,in taking over directly the
or in fieldswhere the preservationof a minimum of
controlof public serwices,
socialorder requiressuch institutionsas socialsecurity,a health service,etc.
It is preciselythose productions that are not srictly part of the bi-polar
relation of exploitation that becomein a sensedevalued,It goes without
saying,for example,that the work that goesinto producingraw materialsor
manufactured goods in an under-developedcountry is diflerent from the
equivalentwork in a rich area.The samegoesfor the work in key sectorsol
capitalist production as compared with work in slower sectors(like coal
mining) or, worse still, work viewed as totally worthless(thejobs that give
mental patientsor prisonerssomethingto do).
We have tlrerefore to estimate what money represents in the analytic
exchange - or, rather, pseudo-exchange,for there is no real exchange of
services between analyst and analysand. There are two sorts of work inwork of
volved: the anall,ticalwork of the patient, and the psychoanalvst's
listening and sifting. It is actually quite wrong for there to be an,vffow of
money from one to the other. In a diflerent social systemwhich viewed these
two sortsof work in the sameway as any other form of production, the analyst
and the analysand should both be paid, just as the social division of labour
dictates that not only should factory work be paid, but work in ofEcesand
r . In tervention at the Congressofthe Paris Freudian School heid in Aix-en-Provence,May I q7 r .
Published in Leltresdt I'6colefreudieane,q.

researchlaboratoriesas well. One can hardly imagine unskiiied workers

having to pay the designerswho plan rvhatthey producelBut ofcoursethis is
all part ofthe systemofextractingthe surplus-value.When the psychoanalyst
is paid, he is in fact reproducing
a certain processolcrushing the patient to
adapt him onto the personological
polesofcapitalistsociety.How could it be
otherwisewhen a psychoanalystseespatientswhose position in the family
structurepreventstheir having any personalrole in the flux ofmoney - what
Alain Cotta describesas the rotation of 'family capital'2- or directly taking
part in the clcle of capitalist production (wives,for instance,who gointo
analysiswhich their husbands pay for, or chi.ldren)?Unless there is some
svstemoffunding out oftaxes and contributions,or an allorvancepaid by
somethird bod,v,their analyticalproduction- which shouldin fact be classed
as a u,ork ofeducation (in the widest sense)ofthe collectiveIabour force- is
exploitedproduction. In the analyticalrelationship,the structuresofsocial
alienation within the lamilv are transposedand reproduced:the lamily is
usedas stagingpost. In as much as rhe psychoanalystfinds himselfhavingto
be paid in this way, he is implicitly sanctioninga way of usingthe structuresof
the lamily as an instrument to crush desireproduction and pressit into the
serrice ola socialorder governedby profit.
On the specificallyanalytic level,it seemsto me vital to recognizethat the
child who draws or makesa plasticinemodel lor an analyst,and the wife who
'solve
enters analvsis to
the family's problems', are taking part in sociai
production. At the unconsciouslevel, therefore,the capitalistextractionof
sulplus-value is reproduced, and in a sense,expanded, in the analytic
relationship.The claim of analysisto representa meansof gettingat the ruth
shouldoblige it, first and foremost,ro denounceitself,for by the fact ofbeing
paid for, it startsolla renewalofsocial violence.
At the very least,ifthey carry on as they are, analystsshould be made to
stopjustifyingtheir money relationshipwith their patienrson rhe groundsof
somesupposed'svmbolicorder'. Or elsethey should acceptthe logic of their
positionand stateclearly that, lor them, order itselfis the rightful basisof all
systemsof segregation.In most cases.of course,they are unrvillingto go so
far. Like any other capitalist,they believethat earning money is part of the
normal order of things:'One has to earn a livingl'And, from an analyticpoint
of view, this mav ultimately be the least dangerous, becausethe least
mvstifving,attitude.

z. AIain Cotra, Thioie ginir ale du capital, dela craksanu et det

futuatilu,

Dunod, r 966

Psychoanalysis
and the StrugglesofDesire 63

Psychoanalysisand the Strugglesof Desirei

The problem facins the workers' revolutionarymovementis that there is a

dislocationbetweenthe apparent relationsofpower at the level ofthe class
struggleand the real desireinvestmentof the massof the people.
Capitalism exploitsthe labour capacityof the working classand manipulatesthe relationsof production to its own advantage,but it also insinuates
itself into the desire systemofthose it exploits.The revolutionarystruggle
state ofpower
cannot therelbre be restricted simpiv to the level oftbe apparent
relations. It must extend to every level of the desiring economv that is
contaminated bv capitalism (the individual, the couple, the family, the
schr-,ol,
the militant group, madness,prisons,homosexualityor rvhatever).
The objectsand methodsof the strugglewill vary from onelevelto another.
Sr"rchaims as 'Freedorn,Peaceand Plenty'dernand political organizations
that can intervenein the power struggle,that combineforcesand constitute
blocs. In the nature of thines theseorganizationsmust be representative,
coordinatingthe struggleand providing it with a strategvand tactics.On the
'rnicroscopiclascism'other hand, the struegleagainstwhat we mav call
the
fascisrnimplanted within desiring machines- cannot be carried on 'u'ia
delegatesor representatives.
bv identifiableand unchangingblocs.The face
ol' the enemy is changing all the time: it can be a tiiend, a colleague,a
evenoneself.There is nevera time when you can be sureyou are not
sr-rperior,
going to fall for a politics supporting bureaucracy or privilege, into a
paranoiac vieu' of the world, an unconsciouscollusionwith the establishment, an internalizationof socialrepression.
These two strugglesneednot be mutually exclusir,e:
- The classstn.rgsle,the revolutionarystrugglelor liberation,involvesthe
existenceofwar machinescapableo1'standingup to the forcesofoppression,
rvhich meansoperatingwith a degreeof centralism,with at leasta minimum
of coordination;
- The strugg.ie
in relationto desirerequirescollectiveagenciesto producea
continualiy ongoing analysis,and the subversionol eterltformofpower,at every
level.
t . Tal k eiven a t the fi rst Psrchoanalysisand Politics Conlerence,held in Ni ilan on 7-9 Mav r 973
a n d p u b l i s h e db y F e l t r i n e l l ia n d b y F d i t i o n s r o / r 8 ,

It is surely absurd to hope to overthrow the power ofthe bourgeoisie

by
replacingit with a structure that reconstitutes-thefomt
of that piver. The
classstrugglein Russia,china and ersewherehas demonstratei
that, e'en
after the power ofthe bourgeoisiehas been broken, the form ofthat power
can
be reproducedin the state, in the family, evenin ihe ranks or rhe revorution.
How can we prevenr centrarizing and bureaucratic aurhoriry from
taking
charge of the coordination that is necessarilyinvor'ed in'organizing
a
revolutionary war? The struggle as a whole must include stageslnd
int"er_
mediaries..A,tthe 'microscopic'revel,what must happen,first Jf ail, is a
kind
of direct changeoverto communism, rhe abolition of bourgeois po*e,
in the sensethat that power is embodiedin the bureaucrat,the leader
or the
m i l i t a n td e d i c a t e dr e v o l u t i o n a r r ' .
Bureaucraticcentralismhas teen introducedpermanentryinto the
workers' movement in imitation of the centralist model of capitar.
capitar
supen'isesand o'er'encodes production by controlling the flowof money
and
wieiding coercivepolver over production relationsand in State
monooolv
capitalism.There is a similar problem with bureaucraticsocialism.
But real
productiondoesnot need this kind ofdirection in the least- in
fact is better
without. The major productivemachinesin indus*iar societies
could manase
very well without such centralism. Clearly, a different concepr
of how
productionis related boch to distribution and consumprion,and
to training
and research,would shatter the hierarchical and despoiicpowers
that p.euaii
within present-davproduction relations,and give i... piuy to
the workers'
capacitv for innovation. Evidently, then, the basis of centralism
is not
economicbut political. In the workers' movement,too, centrarism
leads to
the same sort of sterility. It must be acceptedthat lar more elrective
and
broader struggles could be coordinated a.r.",ayfrom bureaucratic
headquarrers,but only ifthe desiring economyofthe workers can
be freed from
the contaminationof the bourgeoissubjectivitythat makesthem
the unconsclousaccomplicesof the capitalist technocracyand the bureaucracy
of the
workerstmovement.
Here we must be careful not to rail into the simplistic trap of saying
either
'democratic'
centralism,or anarchismand spontaneism.
Alternative marginal movemenrs and communities have absolutelv
nothin-gto gain by falling into the myth of a return to the pre-technologici
age,of'back to nature'; on the contrary, they have to copewith .eal
so.l.ty,
real sexual and family relationships, with what is happening
no*. On ti,.
otherhand. one must recognizethat the officialworkers'movement
has up to
now relused to consider how far it mav be contaminated by bourgeois
power,
to consider its own internal corruption. Nor is there at present
any scientific
discipline that can help it to do so. Neither sociorogy,nor psycho-sociology,
nor psychology- still lesspsvchoanalysis- has extlendedMarxism
into this

64

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

nornrs
area.Freuclianism,in the guiseola science,setsup as its unquestioned
- the myth of a
subjectivation
bourgeois
prodr..
rhat
things
verv
the
a signifving
n...uru,-u castiatio,,oidesire, in terms of the Oedipal triangle'

Psychoanalysisand the StrugglesofDesire

65

abstract relation between individuals. No group, no class is made up of

individuals; it is the imprint of capitalistproduction relationson rhe social
dimensionof desirethat producesthe streamof undifrerentiatedindividuars
necessaryin order to inveigle a work force.
interpretatiorlwhichtendstoisolatetheanaiysis|romtherealitiesofitssocial
Did the eventsolMay r 968 in Franceinrroducea potenrialchangeinto the
settlng.
""J'uiua.a
of
centralism
revolutionary
technocratic
the
movement,specificallyon this point of the desir.ingeconomy?
of
abolishing
to the possibility
of
understanding
Had
a
different
such
a
change
taken place,it would have had considerablepoliticaland
on
rvould
be
based
which
capitaiistproduction,
social consequencesl
One can only say that, since the relative decline of
betweenproduction, distribution and consumptionon the
the relatir.rnship
This would
Stalinism,since the departure of a significantproportion of young workers
one hanclatrclproduction, researchand educationon the other'
the
and studentslrom the traditional revolutionarymodels,we have witnessed
obviousil,tenclto nrakea total changein attitudesto rvork,and especiallv
socialh'useful
(recognized
as
not a major break but little breakthroughsof desire,little breachesin the
uselul
as
socially
rvork
recognizecl
split betu,eeu
o f d e s i r eA
. ll
despoticsystemthat prevailsin politicalorgarrizations.
b y c a p i t a l i s mt,h a t i s , b i ' t h e r u l i n g c l a s s )a n d t h e ' u s e l e s s ' r v o r k
of indiThe depredationsof N{ay '68 in Francewere repairedwithin a few weeks.
of p.oductic,,t,whether ol commercialvalue or use value, llherher
organizofsocial
lorm
ofa
Perhaps
controi
no more than two. Nevertheless,
the
under
is
it had the most profound consebodies,
viduals cir coliective
disappearquences,and they are slill being felt at all sorts of levels.Even though its
ation rhat enlbrcesa cerrainpatternofsocialdivisionoflabour.The
resultsare no longervisibleon a nationalscale,it is still goingon by a kind of
ance ol capitalisr centralism rvould thereforebring ivith it a fundamental
developed
highiv
rvith
infiltration in many differentsituations.A nervvision has beenborn, a nerv
a
societv
in
E'"en
re-castinqof production techniclucs.
c
a
r
.
o
r
)
e
e
t
c
.
.
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
t
approach
to problemsof revolution.Before'68, for instance,it would have
i
n
f
o
r
n
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
e
l
u
p
c
d
d
e
i
i n d u s L r ; a r r c lh i g h l v
to
antagonlstlc
be
wotrld
not
been
unthinkable
that
to suggestthat there could be any political purpose in
relations
production
ot'diflbrent
concen'e
is
campaigningin lavour of common criminals in prison; it would have been
the productionsof desire,of art, of dreams ln other words, the question
as
unthinkablefor homosexu'als
to demonstratein the streetsin defenceof their
nuheihe.or not it is possibleto stop seeinguse value and exchangevalue
olprodr-rcforms
particular
all
complex
orientation
of
rejecting
desire.
of
The women'sliberationmovemenr,the fight
aiternative
ihe
mutually opposeci.
againstrepressionin psychiatry,theseand other movementshave acquired
a return to ntlture merei;'reproducesthe split between
tion and clenrancling
of
completelynervmeaningand methods.Thus it is true that problemsare now
the difl'erenttorm, of production - desiring production and production
seen diflerently, but, equally, there has been no real break. This is unutilitl .
rect gnizcd s<-,cial
doubted.lybecausethere is no large-scalemachine for revolutionary war. We
x
the rvay
have to recognize that certain dominant images are still perpetrating their
Relationsamong individuals,groups and classesare bound up "vith
destructivee{rectse'en within revolutionarygroupsthemselves.
A critique of
individualsare manipulatedby the capitalistsystem-Individuals as such are
bureaucratismin the trade unions has been begun; the principle of the
manufacturedbv that sr-stemto satisf) the demandsof its mode of produc'delegation
of power' to the vanguard, and the system of a ,drive belt'
tion. The idea that rherewere originally,as the basisof society.individuals,
connecting
the people to rhe part)', rhesethings have been brought into
groupSofiridir,idtra,lsinthe|ornro||amiliesandsoonwasthoughtup|orthe
that has
question.But revolutionariesare still the victims of a great many of the
i..a, oL the capitalist sysrenl.In the human sciences,everything
serves
prejudicesofbourgeoismoralitv, and ofrepressiveattitudestowardsdesire.
beenbuih up aiound the individual and the primacy ofthe individual
context.
his
social
and
This
may perhapsexplain the lact that in May '68 therewasno suchattackon
individual
rhe
between
dichotomy
the
extend
to
only
rvith
an1'
to
grapple
psychoanalysis
one
tries
as there was on psychiatry. Psychoanalysispreservedsome
The ciilhcultvone comesup against,the moment
any real
authorityin so lar as a number of the dogmasof psychoanalysis
weretakenon
sociairealitrl- be it language, madnessor anything connectedr.r'ith
boardby the movement
production- is that one is neverdealingwith individuals
processo1'ciesiring
'Ir.
*
u. *u.h as linguistics,for instance,has beensatisfiedto defineits field irr
The real breakthrough will only happen once there is a new approach to such
termsof communicationamong individuals,it has totalll,missedthe coerciye
problemsas the bureaucratismof organizations,the repressiveattitude of
and integrativefunctionsoflanguage.Linguisticsonlv startsto liee itselffrom
connotation,
from
arising
revolutionary men towards their wives and children and their lailure to
problems
tlie
it
studies
when
ideoi'g.v
bourgeois
understandthe significanceoffatigue, neurosisand delusion (it is quite usual
context.the implicit and all the transactionsof languagethat lall outsidethis

66

Psychoanalysisand the StrugglesofDesire

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

'breaksdown' to be dismissedas 'finished"asof no more use

lor someole who
-once suchproblernsare)not
to the organizationifnot a positivedangerto it)
but at leasttreatedwith
Concerns)
political
o|their
pe,hupsut the very centre
the stand that must be
or
problems,
as
organizational
scriousness
the same
police The battle is
the
powerr or management,or
rrracleagainstbor-rrgeois
our otvn internal
against
ranks,
own
our
one tha; Intlst be fought within
have
contended'a
Nlaoists
as
certain
front,
secorldary
a
police.It is notjust
a dichotsrppo.ting action.'amarginal operatiorl'As long as there remains
ofdesire.
front
the
on
battle
o-y.b.,.u..n the battle on the classlront and the
'68, most
after
\{a,v
Significantly,
possible.
be
all ibrms o1'.r-optionrvill still
n'eaklink that
revolutionar.vmovementslailed to graspthe importanceof the
had becomeapparentduring the studentstruggle Quite suddenly'students
,lorgot' the respectthat wasdue to the superiorknowledge
and young u,oikers
from the old
und po*J, oiteachers,io..*.n, managers.etc They brokeaway
new approach'
entirely
an
introduced
and
the
past
of
values
the
to
submissic.rn
But the u,holething was labeliedspontaneism,in orher u'ords a transitional
'superior'phase,marked b1'the
manifestationthat must be left bel'rindfor a
the people;it
setting-Lrpofcentralistorganizations.Desiresurgedup among
that
*,u, n[,.i, but expectedto quietenand acceptdiscipline No one realized
further
all
from
inseparable
this new form of revolt would in future be
economicand political struggles'
way in
when I tark o['x{arxismand Freudianlr*. I huu. in mind a particular
olview,
point
one
From
are
treated.
rvhich the texts oflv{arx and Freud
all its
Freudianisrr must be defined as reactionaryin all its socialstar-rces,
while even
lamily'
the
and
individual
the
between
relations
of
analyses
problems
Marxism remains generally inadequate in its treatment of the

67

lull-time revolutionaryor a doctor,activitv in one'slamilv, one'smarriageor

any other situation.
It is perhaps conceivable,if circumstanceswere different, that we could
start talking seriousl,vofthe relation betweena politics ofdesire and a politics
ofrevolution,but only ifwe werepreparedto be totally honest,and ifneed be,
tread on somepeople'stoes.
to stressthe
A number ofpeople have intervenedduring thesediscussions
view that the principal dilemma facing us in our particular field is that
'alternativepsychiatry' and a psychiatric
betweena (reformist) politics of
politics that is revolutionaryfrom the word go. This would mean that there
were t$'o camps: on the one side would be Jervis2 and on the other such
experiences
as the SPK.'
But the problem is not really so simple.The conflict that lacesus in trving
to contemplatea politics of desirecannot be restrictedto a singlefront; it is
c, G. J ervis is an l talian psychiarist, author ofa cri tical handbook on psvchiatry'
3. A socialist patients' collective in Heidelberg. The SPK was made up oftherapeutic groups
comprising some lorty patients at the Polyclinic ofHeidelberg University. These patients,and their
doctor. Dr Huber, carried out a thtoretical and practical critique ofthe institution, and discloscd
the ideoiogical function ofpslchiatry as an instrument ofoppression. Their work soon attmcted
'a
increasing opposition from rhe psychiatric cl i nic - i ts di rector d escribed the group as collective of
hatred and aggression'.
As repressionintensified,so did resistance.It becameimpossible to get rid ofthe SPK by o{ficial
and iegal means. I n a secretsession,the Univcnity Senatedecided to call in the police.They found a
pretext inJ ul,v r 97 r , when there was an exchangeofgunfire in the subu rbs of Heidelberg.This was
biamedon the S P K, which could then be put down in the most brutal way. Three hundred copswith
suImachine guns lorced their way into the SPK premiscs, helicopters flew over the city, thc
(special brigades) were nrobilized, searcheswere made with no wanant, Dr
Bundesgrenqschut7
Huber's children taken as hostages,parients and doctors were arrested, and the accused were
drugged ro make them appear cooperative.The SPK thereupon decided to disband.

relatedtodesire.Thisdoesnotmeanjhowever,th:rtthereisnomoretobe
Dr Huber and his wife spent some years in prison, in an almost total isolation which even ajudge
said about rhe textsofFreud and i\{arx'
describedas inhuman, By treating them first as insane and then as terrorists (becauseof their
T h e q u e s r i o n i s j u s t i v h a t u s e t o m a k e o | t h e m . A s w i t h e v e r v t h e o r y , t h e r e raponse to police provocation they were compared with the Baader-Meinhofgroup), they could be
as a meansof
brought beforea special tribunal opemting on Nazi principles.
are two;ays in which they could be used The text can be used
links
betweenone
the
The defencewas paralysed. One ofthe lar.yers, Eberhardt Becker, was accusedofcomplicity,
connections,
social
real
identifying and illumir.rating
and charged. -Another,Jorg Lang, was imprisoned. All the lawy'erswho supportcd them were
to tailor
as
wa-v
a
such
in
be
used
can
the
theory
or
next;
the
.r.rggi. and
harassedand removed by one means or another. Lawyers were appointed who only saw the
r e a l i t yt o f i t t h e t e x t
documentsin the casea lorrnight before it opened,wherero the press had had them from the fint.
relation-ship
the
explain
to
they
try
r.r'hen
People are often verv dogmatic
The accused rejected their serviccs.
way out of this
On 7 November r g7z, the day the trial opened in Karlsruhe, the three accusedwere brought in on
betw"en lr{arxism and Freudianism.I believethat the only
sretchers (two between the threeofthem), tied hand and foot. The Hubers, who had not seenone
blindalle-vliesintalkingashonestl.vaspossibleabouttherealityofthe
anotherlor fifteen months, were bullied and violently separated,and finally expelledfrom the court,
conflicts- but they must be e{Iectiveconflicts'
AslongaSwepreserveacleardir,iding.linebetw.eenprivateli|eand.public
and ciass
life, we ihull g.t nowhere. To clariiy political commitmenrs
massof words' requires
a
in
oneself
burying
merely
*ithout
commitments,
discussionattheler,elofone'sday-to-dayactir,'ity,beittheactivityofa

alongwith Hausner, the third defendant. Halfofthose prment werc plain-clothespolicemen.Part of

the rest wcre also expelledafter one young man read out a statemcnt ofinternational solidaritv wi th

theaccuscd.He, even beforc he had got outside the court building, was anested, abused,beaten up
and left without medical attention for hours, A medical certificatelater issuedbv Karlsruhe hosoital
describedseveredamage, some to the skull.

68

Institutional PsychotheraPY

not iust a rnatterof capitalismversusthe working class.I believethat a mass

ofnew fronts will have to be openedas the working classand the organizations of the workers, movement become contaminated by the subjectivity of
'going out to the workers' and quoting
the ruling class.It needsmore than
influencein the sphereof
rid
oneselfofbourgeois
to
right
authors
{iorn the
desire.In this sense,one cannot (asJervishas) identify the statedinterestsof
the u,orkerswith their desire. The interestsof the Americanworking class,lor
instance,may be objectivelyfascistin tendencylrom the point ofview ofthe
politicsof desire.T!e unions'fight to defendthe workers'interests,legitimate
though it be, can alsobe totally repressivein relation to the desire6fa whole
seriesofother socialgroups,ethnicand sexualminorities,and soon. I belieye,
lcrr exampie, that u'e must not delude ourselvesas to the possibility of a
politicalalliancebetweenthe psychoanalyticvanguardu'ho claim to havegot
rid 6f psychiatricrepression,and the working-classorganizationsthat exist
as
today. The modelsofrepressionare as unpleasantamong psychoanalysts
leave
the
is
not
to
class
working
the
To
go
among
militants.
political
among
hospital.
psychiarrichospitalbut merely'toentera differentsort of ps,vchiatric
I spentover ten yearsworking in the FrenchCommunist Party, and that too
was a kind ofpsychiatrichospital.I do not think one can go merelyby slogans
ancispeechesand written texts if one is to judge whether or not a position is
truly revolutionaryfrom the point ofview ofdesire
The theoreticalwritings of the SPK, for instance,make exceptionalll'
dogmaticreading,vet their politicsweregenuinelyrevolutionary'What they
did shows the way to rvhat might be truly neighbourhoodpolitics, an
emergentpoliticsof a masskind. However,the SPK was in no sensea party
forrned on the basisof a programme of how to conduct the struggle.Only
desiresserveto clarify the
during rhe struggiedid the investmentofsuccessive
aims and merhodsof the conflict.The SPK's politicsmightjust as easilyhave
been those of an alternative psychiatr;'- not in the senseof anv reformist
compromise,but as an alternativebasedon the realitiesof power'
At present,in a very poor district of New York, the South Bronx, black ano
Puerto Rican groups are running a drug addiction unit in Lincoln Hospital.
Thus a popular movementhas takenover the fight againstdrug-dependence'
This is also a lorm of alternativepolitics,sincethis mo\rementhas replaced
rhe drug programmeof the Governor of New York State.Doctors no longer
come into the unit, but remain outsideand are called upon only for professional advice. The unit has its own police force, and the fact that the
governmentdoesnot closeit or ban it, and indeedactuailv goesso lar as to
subsidizeit, is becausethe activistswho organize it are supported by the
blacks and Puerto Ricans, and all the local gangs. In this case, then, an
alternarivepolitics is a possibilitybecauseit is basedon real revolutionary
conflict.But, equallv,it could be an illusion to seekto politicizepsychiatryif

Psychoanalysisand the StrugglesofDesire

69

the political action undertaken in the effort remains tied to traditional

repressir.'e
attitudes to madnessand desire.
Could psychoanalysisbecome a force lor progress, could it develop into a
'people'spsychoanalysis'?
It bearsthe stamp ofthe psychoanalysr's
training
as a privileged casteas much as it ever did. The essenceofpsychoanalysisis
still that it is a taughtdiscipline,initiation into the psychoanalyticcasre.Even
if a psychoanalystwants to behavelike'ordinary people',he is still a member
of that caste; even if he is not preaching his concept of the proper relation
betweendesireand society,he is still re-enacringrhe samerepressive
politics
in his practice.The problem, therefore,is not that his ideasare more or less
wrong, but that his whole way ofworking reproducesthe essenceofbourgeois
subjectivity.A man who sits on his chair listening to what you say, but
systematicallydistanceshimselflrom what it is all about, doesnot evenhave
to try to impose his ideason you: he is creating a relationship of power which
leadsyou to coicentrate your desiring energyoutside the social territory. Nor
- it is only more marked here
is this somethingpeculiar to psychoanalysts
than in the other professions
of socialcontrol.We find it in the teacheron his
rostrum,the overseerbehind his glasspartition, the army ofEcer,the cop, the
psychologist
with his batteriesoftests,the psychiatristin his bin, etc.,etc.All
of them individually may well be very nice people. They may well do
everything they can to help those they deal with, yet lor all their good will
eachis contributing in his own way to condemningindividualsto loneliness
and extinguishingtheir desire.Of courseeveryattemptis madeto cushionthe
repression:with modern teaching methods, for instance, they try to ensure
that no child feelsat sea in a huge class,no child is terrorized by the teacher.
The psychoanalyst,too, tries to make his techniquegentler- and ultimately
more insidious.He de-gutsand neutralizeseverythinghis patientstell him,
thusadministeringa kind of subjectivitydrug. And who is to blame him for
that?Ifwe are not going to condemn the drugs used byjunkies, why should
we condemn the sort people go to psychoanalystsfor? That is not the point.
Everyonedoes his own thing as well as he can, and each in his own way plays
a supporting role as policeman - as father in the family, as male chauvinist in
thecouple,as child-t1'rantand so on. Nothing is gained by issuingcondemnations,by anathematizingthe behaviourof this personor thar.What mattersis
to prevent the workers' movement from being contaminated by the ideology
and modesofsubjectivation of bourgeoisauthority,
The fact that a few people are trying to introduce 'psychoanalysisfor the
people'is not in itselfvery serious.What is serious,on the orher hand, is that
thosewho direct the workers' movement, parties, trade unions, small left
groupuscules,are carrying on in their own way just like teachers,or
- ultimately,just like policemen.Fighting lor betterpay and
psychoanalysts

7o

Institutional PsYchotheraPY

class are the

conditions is not the be-all and end-all. The working
-pnme
There is indeed a
desire'
victims of capitalist techniquesto manipulate
problem cannot be
problem of sufleringamong ihe working class,but that
the love-livesof the
(sport,
TV'
kind
otarugrlot*natever
resoluedby the use
possibilityof a remedy'
fu*ou., t(e Party mystiq"ue,or whatever)'The only
i s l b r t h e o r g"problem
anizationo|theworkers'movementitselftotakecontrol
of how to liberate desire- and to do so without any
of the whole
and
help from psychoanalysts,without itself becoming a psychoanall'st'
alienating
and
repressive
without resortlng to any of the psychoanalyst's
techniques.
Themostcommonfeature(wherebywecarrrecognizethe.Oedipusmethod,)
can be fitted
is a certain technique ofreductive representation. EuerLsituztton
triangular
apparently
in
an
into a systemofrepresentationthat is expressed
'apparently', becausesuch a systemoperateslar more along a
-od.. i say
reducedto a singleterm,
binar.ymoje, and indeedconstantlytendsro become
'black-hole'eflect'
or to vanish altogetherin what I rvould cali a
lnthebeginni-ng,awholeseriesofambiguous,ambivalentnotionsmadeit
possible|or"Freudianismtooperatequiteunlikeamethodclosedinupon
and caused
itself.But its centraldiscoveries,all that gave utteranceto desire
place to
not
the
is
This
lost.
such scandalat the time, have sincethen been
of
history
the
fact
in
is
which
closing-in
trace the history of that
developstructuralist
recent
most
its
excluding
not
itself,
psvchoanalvsis
ments.
of the unconscious.lt
I will take one example:its attitude to the processes
no more involved
they
that
not
dialectical,
were
recognizedat first thatihese
,n.guiio., than they did the negationof negation..Theunconsciousis wholly
by
poliriu., a machine of fluxesand i'tensities not determinedor controlled
the
But.by
psychoanallsis'
it
by
onto
ih..,ur,..n, of representationprojected
into it
intermediarv of the transferince, psychoanalysishas introduced
as a
treated
are
and iack. The intensitiesof dreams,lor instance,
negativeness
their
interpretation,
and
kirid of raw material. By the technique olassociation
caught
manifestexpressionis re-written in terms of fundamentalstructure.
- that of the manifestcontentand that
structuring
of
modes
two
the
between
all possible
o{'the later-rtcontent - desire finds its lines of escapecut offfrom
of
interpretation
psychoanalyst's
connection with reality Ultimateiy the
oedipus
the
of
coordinates
the
social
into
them
dreams consistsin fitting
is threaten.
complex. To take another example, perhaps even ciearer:a child
'Baptiste,I'm going to cut o{fyour head'' W.ho
ing his little brother, shouting.
the real child?
iril'? Who is the speakerlWirat evidenceleadsus to say it is
AndthesamewithBaptiste'Ifwetaketheuseo|theChristiannameaS
we make
referring to a real child, ther"rwe make the child using it responsible:

Psychoanalysisand the StrugglesofDesire

7r

him the potential murderer of his brother, But was it really his brother as
such, that particular member of his family, that he meant? Clearly, the
intensitiesof desire must be linked to normally acceptedsystemsof representation,but encounterslike this can lead in two directions,can express
two sorts of politics. The first will use them as so many sign machines for
expressingintensitiesof everykind. The small child says,'I'm going to cut off
mv brother's head.' And he at once switchesto a totally di{Ierentplan - he
might perhapsdecideto go offto rhe moon with him. We then discoverthat
his hared for his brother is coextensivewith his love lor him.
But this is not really a 'discovery'at all. The hatred was not'masking' the
Iove. It isjust that a new connectionhas produced a new possibility.The
hatred rvhen diflerently 'driven'has producedlove. The unconsciousholds
nothing that can be denied,nothing ofwhich one can say later that it caused
the personto feelambivalent.It has not changedits mind, but merelypassed
on to somethingelse.It is thus nonsenseto say that the child is polymorphouslv perverse,etc. Pulling the headoffone'sdoll, wanting to strokeone's
mother's tummy - theseare not things that can properly be related to the
'whole
objects'of acceptedlogic.They do not involvethe child's responsibility as such. The repressiveanalytic attitude, founded upon 'normalized'
representations,
will systematicallytake him at his word, and reify what he
hassaid: 'He wanted to kill his brother,he desireshis mother,he meanswhat
he says.he is incestuous.'All the agentsof the story- the child, the brother
and the mother - will then becomefixed in the domain of representation.If
you say to a child: 'You've brokenthe headoffyour doll - and you know quite
well that it cost us a lot to buy it lor you!', then you are lorcing her into the
systemof economicvalues,so that gradually all her objectswill be seenin
relation to the categoriesof the prevailing reality, the prevailing order. All of
reality then becomesimprisonedin the schemaof dualist values- good/evil,
expensive/inexpensive,
rich/poor, uselul/useless
and so on.
The unconscious,however,despiteits rejectionofnegativityand ofall the
dualistsystemsrelatedto it, despiteits ignoranceof loveor hatred,or what is
commandedor what forbidden,is led to make its own kind of investigationof
this crazy world of acceptedvalues.It dealswith the problemsas bestit can.
It sneaksaround them. It sets up the leading characterson the domestic
scene,the representatives
of the law, like so many grimacingpuppets. But it is
primarily in the directionof this world of socialrepresentations
that we must
obviouslv look lor the intrinsic perversionofthat system. Psychoanalvsishas
not managed to escapethis perversion of the normal world. From the very
first, it sought to control desire. The unconscious always appeared to it
something bestial and dangerous. None of the successivelormulations of
Freud has ever abandoned this position.-Libidinal energ"ymust be converted
to the Manichean svstem of accepted values, it must produce normal

72

Institutional Psychotherapy

r.presentations.There could be no questionol enjo;ring

shitting in your bed
wrthout an accompanyingfeelingof guilt.
From intensitiesthat might meanmanv things,we havethus cometo invest
punitive socialvalueswith the promotion of the castrationcomplex.In point
offact, the closing-inofpsychoanalysisupon the Oedipal trianglerepresents
a kind of attempt to escapefronr that drive to abolish desire that leads it
ahnost in spite of itself towards this binary, \,{anicheanperversion.The
Oedipus schemawas constructedas a barrier to narcissism,to destructive
late olthe instincts.But the
identifications.It seemedto representa necessary
death instinctcomesinto beingonly at the point rvhenone leavesthe sphereof
desiring intensitiesfor that of representation.The Oedipal triangle is an
* to stop the descentinto the death
attempt- alw,aysmore or lessur-rsuccessful
instinct.It neverreally works as a trianglebecausedeath,symbolicabolition,
libidinal collapse, threatens all three sides of it. In the theatre of the
psvchoanalyticGrand Guignol, thereis alwaysan unhappy ending.Between
lather and child is the risk olreciprocal extermination(the Oedipal murder
thntasy is paralleled b-u.'
the fantasy that a child is being beaten).Between
lather and mother is the 'primal scene'of intercourse,experiencedby the
child as murder. Betrveenmother and child is the imminent danger of
narcissisticdissolution,return to the womb, etc.- in other words,of suicide.
schizo-analvticpolitics
In short, I should say that, unlike psvchoanalvsis,
would be led to considerthat the death instinctis nor somethingthat existsin
itself,but that it is linked with a certainway ofposing the problemofdesirein
a certain n,pe of society. Desire is unaware of death, of negation,and the
tragediesof the lamilialist Grand Guignol strikeit asfunny. Sincenegationis
always related to the position ofa subject,an object and a relerencepoint,
desire, being purely and intensivelypositive,changesround subjectsand
objects;it is fltix and intensity. In so far as the subjectis bound up with a
svstemolrepresentation,the individual libido finds itselfdependenton the
capitalist rnachinewhich forcesit to function in terms of a communication
basedon dualist systems.The socialenvironmentis not made up of objects
u'hich pre-existedthe individual. The person imprisoned in such bi-polar
life/death,etc. has
systemsas man/rvoman,childiadult, genital/pre-genital,
to an Oedipalizingreductionofdesire to representaalready beensub.jected
tion. For desireto be expressedin individual terms meansthat it is alreadv
condemnedto castration.There existsa totaliv di{Ierentnotion: the idea of a
collectiveforce,a collectivedirectionoflibido to parts ofthe body, groupsof
constellations
and intensities,machinesof everykind individr-rals,
of ob.jects
tiius bringing desireout of that back-and-forthbetweenthe Oedipal triangle
and its dissolutionin the death instinct, and linking it up u'ith ever-wider
possibilitiesof many diflerentkinds that becomeever more open to the social
environment.

The Role of the Signifier in the Institutionl

I am using Hjelmslev'scategorieshere solel,vin an attempt to identily the

position of the signifier in the institution - a position that the classical
analyticalsituation did not reveal.We may remember that the distinction
betu'eenexpressionand content is overlaid by a triple division into matter,
substanceand 1brm. I shall be mainh'concerned wirh the opposition he
establishesbenveenmatter (the matter both ol the expressionand of the
content)and the formation of semioticsubstances.
!\'hat I lvant to show here is that the semiologies
olsignificationoperatein
thefour areaswhere expressionand contentare cut acrossby substanceand
lorm, wher-easthe semiotics \{e are conlronted with in an institutional
situationinvolve nvo further dimensionsof a-semioticallyformed matter thatis, meaningas the material of expression,
and the continuum of material
fluxesas the materialof content.Thus the six areassho,,vnin the diaeram are
a l l a c t i v e hi n, v o l v e d . '
tornredsubstancs
somiotioally
substance

maltar

form

a-si9nifyinq
ssmioticp
ot exo16ssion
of content

ffi
\

-s] "y?

a-Bomiotic 6ncodings

F o r H j e l r n s l e r ,a, s u b s t a n c ei s s e m i o t i c a l l l ' l o r m e d
when its lorm is proj e c t e do n t o m a t t e r o r m e a n i n g ' a s a n e t t h a t i s s t r e t c h e do u t p r o j e c t si t s
shadorvolrto an unbroken surlace'(cl. Prolegontines).
As rveknou', signi{iing
chainssetgoing.at the ler"elofthe substanceofexpression,a limited rangeol
r l - a l k s i l c n a t t h e P a r i s F r e u d i a n S c h o o l h c l d i n I - a M o t t e , N o v e m b e r r g 7 j . P u b l i s h e di n
Snniotex!.

71

Institutional Ps.vchotherapl'

composition is
siqns - discretizecland digitalized signs rvhoseformal
to me that
Il
seems
contents.
signified
of
their
{.:on3o,n..1
to the fbrmalizarion
distinction
Hjelmsler"s
in
assimilating
over-hastv
ha,;e
been
the linguists
distinction between the
betrveenexpressicinilrrd content rvith Saussure',s
the separation betweeu
of.fact,
point
signifier and what is signified. In
substances,to the
formed
senrioticallv
and
mltter
lormed
a-semiotically
independentlv of the relationship betrveen
exterrt th;rt it is estaLtlishecl
ol
expressloiland conten[,opensthe wa)' to a study ofsemioticsindependent
zol
preciseil''
which
are
miotics
se
'
to
sav,
that
is
serniologies
the si.e;nitving
careful not to
basei ort the bi-pc-,larityof signilier and signified' Bv being
brought to
n'e
are
coniuseinstirutionalsemioticswith signitiing semiotics'
call
I
lvhat
fiom
both
riistinguishone liorr the other, ancl to separate
"r'ill
n o n - s e m i o t iecn c o d i n g s .
2
Let me onceagain summarizemy suggestedclassification
code' or any
ger:etic
the
is
(r\.:'v-on-.vemiotic
example of these
cncodings..\n
of the
independently
functions
u'hich
encoding,
()i'r,ltat
u,e cail natural
ti,pe
the
forrnaiize
code
oi
lorms
These
substance.
semiotic
of
any
{:nnstitutior
arena-oi'inaterialintensitiesrvithoutrecourseto any autonomousor translatprojecting
2[]s 6erieoiinscription' One must avoid tlre semioticmistakeof
,inscription'onto the world of nature.There is no genetic
t h e i c l r : ao f
,hanciwriting'.']'hesecondverticalcolumn of our table is not involved.3
These are based upon systemsof signs' on sub(ti Signifiing semiologies.
on the
srancesloim".l semioticallyand ha'ing a relationshipof lormalization
- svmbolic
kinds
trvo
of
are
The-v
expression
and
of
of
cotrtent
plane l,-c,th
and semiologiesof sienification
serniologies
substancernto play
rcmioiogieri
,.1 S-lmhottc
" These bring various t,vpesof
olgesture
. of mime, of
semiorics
are
thete
instancr.
l,-,p.imiti"e societieslfor
ofthe
creation
The
so
on'
aud
ofritual
body,
the
on
inscriptions
o{
p,ruru..,
i,rorld'of childhood or the'world'ol'madness also brings into plav several
into any
non-centred semiotic circles that can never be fully translated
preserve
will
therefore
substances
semiotic
ofsignification.
universalsystem
r)'pe of
specific
to
a
corresponds
that
territoriality
autonornous
certain
a
jr,uis.sance,a
lt
r . I n s u c r : t r : c i i r q s e c r i o n s w e s h ab lel r e t u r n i n g m a n y t i m e s ! o t h i s a t t c m p t t o c i a s s i f v e n c o d i n g s
t h i s c l a s s i h c a t i oonu t .
r r a si n i a c l d u r i i l g r h er v r i t i r g o f t h e s ev a r i o u sa r t i c l e st h a t I g r a d u a l l vu ' o r k e d
'rhich I initialiv
and orlr' ,irtc,, ihen hut" I been abie to unifv the various viewpoins from
it
approachcd
'3.
those of form and
lVhether there are in non-semioric encodings strata that correspond to
complex
certaini'v
conteni i. a {tueslion llt unnot go illto here Ler us say merely that therc
"r
s,vstemsolar!icuiation in genctic coc{es,
; Ajol'thatgrasirsoneisbeing(specificallvusedtohringoutthesenseofgraspinginrelationto
trritorialitv t.

The Role of the Signifierin the Insritution 75

(b) semialogies
of signifuation.on the other hand. all their subsrancesof
e x p r e s s i o n( o f s o u n d .s i g h t a n d s o o n ) a r e c e n t r e du p o n a s i n s l es i g n i f v i n g
s u b s r a n c eT. h i s i s r h e d i c t a r o r s h i po { ' r h e s i g n i h e r ' .t n u r , . F . r . n i ; i : ; ;
stance can be consideredas a written arche-.,vriting,but not in Derrida's
sense:it is not a matter of a script that engendersall semioticorganization,
but of the appearance- datable in history - of writing machinesas a basic
t o o If o r t h e g r e a td e s p o r i ce m p i r e s .
writing machinesare essenriallylinked to the setting-upof state power
machines. The monrent they are there, ail othr poly-centredsemiotic
subsrancesbecomedependentupon a singlespecificstratum ofthe signifier.
The totalitarian narure of that dependenceis such rhat, by a tremindous
retroactiveefrort,it seemsto make all semioticsoriginatefrom the signifier.
The efrect of the written word in the unconscious is from thenleficrth
fundamental- not becauseit relatesback to an archetvpalw,rittenlanguage.
but becauseit manifeststhe permanenceof a despoticsignificancewhich,
though arising out of particular historical conditions, can none the less
continueto developand extendits effectsinto other conditions.
(3) tl-signi.,iingsemiotics,
These must be distinguished from semiologiesof'
signification;rhev are, in a rvord, post-signifvingsemiotics.An instanceof a
non-signifyingsemioticwould be a marhemaricalsign machinenor intended
to produce significations;others would be a technico-semiotic
complexus,
which could be scientific, economic, musical or artisric, or perhaps an
a.alytic revolutionarymachine.These a-signifyinsmachinesremain tased
on sig'ifying semiotics,but no longer use them as anyrhing but a tool, an
instrumenrof semioticde-territorialization,making it possiblefor the semlotic fluxesto lorm new connectionswith the most de-territorialized-material
fluxes.Such connectionsoperateindependentl;'ofwhetheror not thel,sigrrif,v
any'thingto anybody. In a sense,Benv6nisteis right to say that a// semiotic.s
depend lor their beine on a signifyinglanguage.But the dependenceis not
such as to involve any relationshipofsuperiority or subjection.A theory in
physicsor chemistryneedsevokeno mental representationolthe atom or of
electricity,even though it still has to be expressedin a languageofsignifications and images. It cannot do without props of this kind, but what it is
essentialiybringing inro operation is a certain kind of sign machine that
servesto support the absrractmachineson r'hich the lorcesolexperimental
and theoretical complexesare based. we get to a point w.hereeven the
distinctionberrveena siqn machine and a technico-scientific
machine is no
ionger relevant;the discoveryof a new tvpe of chemicalchain, or a microphvsicalparticleis, in somesense,pre-ordainedbl.a semioticproductionthat
will determinenot on.lvits spatio-temporalspecifications,
but alsoits conditions of existence.Thus, with non-signifvingsemiotics,it is the reciprocal

76 InstitutiorralPsychotherapy
relationshipsof production and generationbetweenthe semiotic machine
and the rlate riai tluxesthat are being radica.llvaltercd'
in other
of representation,
The signifyingmachinewas basedon the s.vstem
,ords oi-, a productio' of semiotic redundancl' that created a world oi
of images,analoguesand schematain placeof real intensities
quasi-obiecrs,
uno muitipticities.The signifyinge{Iectproducedbv the conjunctionof the
a
two forn,,ilir,,rs* of the signifier and the signified was thus caught in
veritable vicior.iscircie, with the semiotic fluxes atld the material fluxes
neutralizingeachorher in the sphereofrepresentation.A rvorldofdominant
out of the signilying re-te;ritorializationsthat
signi6catioriwas establisheci
resulredfrom the, as it rr,ere, self-mutilationolthe semioticmachineseffected
ol.
by their being cenrredsolely on the signifying machine that machine
autonomous
an
on
functioned
The
signifier
illusion anil impotentization.
referringback to itself,*'hile realitv was to be
stratllm olits own, ceaseiessly
ibun,l a iong rvavarvaylrorn the semioticfiuxes.An individuatedsubjectivitv
'a
emergeclironr the rvorkingsof that signifvingm;rchine;iD Lacan'sphrase'
signifier icpresentsthe subject for another signifier'. It rva.san ambiguotts,
divicledsutrjectivitv:in its unconsciousaspectit took part in a processol
semiotic de-territorializationthat $,'asat work in the linguistic machines,
prcpariug thenl to become a-signi$,ingsemiotic machines,"r'hcreasin its
aspectit u,asbaseclon rhe re-territorializationolsignificanceand
"on..io".
interpretation.
'I'his
positiL.nof the subject changesradically rn'hena-signifuingsemiotics
comc ro tlre forefront. The u,orld of rnental representation(u'hich Frege
or'reference'(at the peakofogden and
contrasisrvith conceptsand ob.iects)
Richards's tr.iangle,swhich is interposed between the symbol and the referent) then no longer functions to centre and over-encodesemiotics Signsare
involved in things prior to representation.Signs and things engageone
nnorher inclependentlyof the subjectivecontrol rhat agentsol individual
utteranceclaim to have over them.
A collectiveagenc)/ofutter'anceis then in a positionto deprivethe spoken
w1rrclol its {Lnctionas inraginarysupPortio the cosmos.It replacesit with a
collectivevoice thar combines machinic elementsof all kinds human,
by a
utterance
of
semlotic,technologicai,scientific,etc. The illusion specific
side-e{Iect
a
merely
having
been
as
can
seen
be
human subjectuu.ri.h.u,and
pfoduced and manipulated by political and economic
oi the sre,ternenis
systems.
I r is gerrerallythought that children, the mad and the primitive are forced
(ges,o .*pi.r. thenrselvesthroughthe rnedium ol'second-le'el' semiotics
of a
masterv
the
to
no
access
have
they
because
tr,res, c.i,,, and so on)
q Ch. OgJtn ancl l, r\. RicharCs, TheMeantngafMecring, London' tq:3'

The Role of the Signifierin the Institution

77

signilyingsemiotic.what is seenas rhegreatesrdisadr,antage

of this medium
is that such expressions
do not allow an1'univocaltr.anslation
of the messaees
t h e ' c o n v e yi n t o r h e I i n g u i s t i cc o d e t h a t g e n e r a r e tsh e d o m i n a n ts i e n i f i I a tions.This relativenon-translatabilityol the varioussemioticelemenrsused
to be put dou,n either to a deficiency,to fixation at a pre_genitalstage,to a
rejectionof Law, to a cultural incapacityor to somecombinationof these.
In
fact, it is our whole perspecriveof interprerativeanalysis that should be
profoundlv re-shapedinto a difrerenttype ofanalysis ofthe unconscious,
in
which non-signifyingsemioticejemenrswould be in the forelront.
orre-to-oneanalysisand institutionalanalysis,r'hatever their theoretical
arguments,are essentiallydifrerent,becauseof the very difrerentrange
of
semioticmethodsthey employ. Institutional psychotherapyhas many more
semioticcomponents, which make it extremeryhard to respectthe sacrosanct
principleof 'the analvst'sneutrality':it can ,put martersright,, but it can also
make them much r,r'orse.
The institutionsometimes,u....d, in settinggoing
non-signif\'ingmachinesrhar work rowardsa liberarionofdesire,in theiun,!
!1'a' as do literarv, artistic, scientificand other machines.Then,
too. the
problernof the micro-politicalchoicesmade by the analysror the analvtic
group is more acute and sometimeslar more ,open, than in one_ro-one
analvsis.In the nature ol the case,the classicalpsychoanalystis put into
a
positionin rvhich he can almost never- evenshould he wish to - siand aside
lrom his role as dn agent lor normalizing libido and behaviour. In
an
i n s t i t u t i o n t, h e s t a t u so l b o t h t h e s u b j e c t i v a t i oann d t h e t r a n s l e r e n ci e
s ouite
d ifferent.
The non-signil,vingand diagrammatic effecrs,as well as the eilbcts
o[
signifrcance
and interpretation,can thus assumelar greaterproportionrhan
in a one-to-oneanalysis,and can poisoneverysmalest detail ofeveryday
life,
The mania lor interpreting everything, the incessantwatch kept on
the
s u p p o s e d ' s l i p s ' o f t h eu n c o n s c i o u sc,a n r e a c h t h e p o i n t o f w , h a t m i g h t
be
calleda 'paradigmaticinstitutionarperversion'.It then becomesevident
that
the blackmaili'g of peopleinro anal;,sis,and the anguishwhich accompanies
it, se^'e to reinlorce the rnechanismsof identification with, and indeed
mimicrv of, the gurus of analysis. Thus a nert, rype of psychoanaly.tic
despotismhas come into being in recent years in most of the chirdren,s
i n s t t t u t i o nw
s h e r ep e o p l ea r e ' i n t e r e s t e idn a n a l v s i s ' .
our schizo-analvsis
setsout to be radically di{rerentrrom such supposed
'institutional
anall'ses'.In schizo-analysis,
what mattersis the reverseof this
focusirg on the signifier and on analyticai 'leaders'. It seeksto lbsrer
a
semroticpolv-centrismbv assistingthe formation of relatir,.ely
autonomous
and non-rranslatablesemioticsubstances,by giving equal acceptance
to all
desirew'hetherit makessenseor not, by not ...king to makesubjecti'ation
fit
in with the dominant significationsand social laws. Far lrorn its
objective

.-.

;8

Institutional Psvchotherapv

b e i n st o ' c r r r e ' p e o p loef b e h a v i o u trh a t f a l l so u t s i d et h e u s u a ln o r m s ,i t f i n d sa

placefor al! the singuiaririesof thoseu'ho, for one reasonor another,are an
r:xceptiorlto the generalrule. How can such collectiveforcesundo the e{fects
of the anaivtic rush that has becomeespeciallyvirulent sinceeven commercial radio phone-inshave decidedthat one oltheir functionsis to spreadits
blessings?
Well, at the very least,they can dealrvith it by laughingat it, and so
pretensionsofpsychoanalystsofall
bit bv bit deflatingthe pseudo-scientific
k i n d s . I n t h i s w , a v t h e r e w ' i l l b e ' s e m i o t i c a l l vl o r m e d ' , b u t a l s o s o c i a l l y
,-,rganized,
beginningsof resistance- resistancenot mereiy to the evils of
psychoanalysis,but also to the various techniquesol intimidation used to
modelsand the hierarchies
rnakepeoplein generaiacceptthe famii,v-centred
onl;-on
of the system.l,et rnemakeit clear:I wish to condemnpsychoanalysis
which would
irehalfof a diilerent kind of analysis,a micro-politicalanal,vsis
never- at least never deliberately- let itself be cut oil from the real or the
social. CJn behalf, in other words, of a genuine analvsis. For mv main
is that they do not actuallymaiiean analvsis
ronCemnationof psy-choanalysts
at all. The1,entrenchthemselvesin their consultingrooms and behind their
translerences,
so that tl'recure can take placein a test-tubefreeofall outside
They have made analysisan exercisein the sheercontemplac:ontamination.
tion ofevoiving signifiers.punctuatedby interpretationswhictrare generally
nothing more than pointlessgamesof seduction.
Li:t us return for a moment to a problem we discussedearlier:the use of
irsvchotropicdrugs. Up to now, apart from their function as a bone of
contention,they have been made to servea despoticsignifvingsemiology.an
iilterpretationolproblems in terms of categoriesclosedin upon themselves.
havecondemnedthem alongwith the rr'hole
T'hisis why the anti-psvchiatrists
psvcho-pathnlogicaisemiologv, The use of drugs is in lact determined
nccording to medical categories as much as those of social or even police
repression.Nlaking a noiseand causinga disturbancebecomesan abnormality to be dealt with by a drug. But is the lact that drugs are used in this
rrpressiveway really reasonenoughto condemntheir usealtogether?In some
experimentsin institutional psychotherapy;an attempt has been made co
towardsa certain collectiveexperimentareorientatepsycho-pharmacology
rion, in which the adrninistrationof drugs no longer dependssolely on a
cloctorlpatientrelationship,but is decidedupon by staffandpatientstogether
irr a eroup. Insteadofthe laboratorl,'sbeing the referencepoint, it is now - at
ieastthis is the ideal aimed at - a collectivemobilizationof the group'sbodily
intensities and subjective elTects.This creates the conditions for a kind of
'management'of people'soddities rather than a systematicobliteration of
them.
There is no moiecular di{Ierencebetrveenthe drug given as a means of
police repression,and the drug used to quieten disturbed patients in the

,EsH11*2_Jt

/illlv

The Role olthe Signifierin the Institution

7g
hospital'The differencebetweencertaindrugsin the
modern pharmacopoeia
and theillegaldrugs to which peoplebecomeaddictedis
ofrenor.rlyu *utt". of
their side-effects,
which may welr be eiiminatedin rhe ruture.one need
onry
recall the role of mesca.lin
in the work of Henri N{ichauxto seehow drugs can
be part of a svstemolintensitysemioticailyformedalong
non-signiryinglines.
But nowadavsdrugsare mainly usedin psvchiatryro.
p"u.po...iir.p.i..r*.
As the classicclassificationof iilnesseshas railen inio
iirr.., people haue
tended more and more to be lumped together. In
the Unitej States.lor
i n s t a n c em
, o s t p r o b l e m sa r e n o w p u r i n t o t h e
omnibus.",.g"rr;i..iirophrenia- and once the word has beenused,rranquilrizers
w,iribe prescribed
in verr high dosages.yet psl,cho-pharmacoiogy
could just as easily be
directed ro the consritutionof a non-signiryingsimiotic,
iiit were riberated
from medical over-encodrng,
from the po*.. Jr,h. state, the murtinationar
corporationsand so on. Then, insteadofcrushing ali
that wealth ofexpres_
rhat opening-out to realit,vand the ,Jciur, it rvould
help ever1,
:io:, .1ll
i n d i v i d u a lr o m a k e t h e m o s to f t h e i r p o t e n t i a l .
one objectionthat has beenraisedagainstcoriectivea'arytic
forcesseems
to me somewhat paradoxical, There is a danger,
it is said, that specific
individual desireswill be crushed,rhar a new tyie
of despotismwill dwerof .
Peopleu,ho say this must be undersrandingmi
proposalsin rermsof their
o.wnexperienceof group analysis,and analysisin institutions.
Let me repeat,
then,that I arn lar lrom proposingto replaceindividual
anall,sis*ith d;;;
techniques- which certainrycould result in toning
down individual difrerences'\then i ralk olcollecti'e rorcesI do not necessarill,'mean
groups:they
canbe indi'iduals, but alsorunctio's, machines,ail
sortsof semio,i..yrt....
onlv if ''r'eger back to the molecurarorder of desiremachines,
in other rvords,
somethingmore basic than the group and the individuar (towards
what
Lacan calls the objetpettt'a') shall we succeedin
breaking up".t th. -u.rproduced monoliths of our institutional structures
so as to free those in
marginalpositionsofdesirerrom the neuroticdead-ends
in which they are at
present.The tendency of the individuation of
desire is alwavs towards
paranoiaand individuarism.so the probiem is
to find colrectivewavs our of
the t;'rann' of sysremsbasedon idenrificationand individuation.
Ii i. qrii.
true that the effectsolgroups are all too likely to lead
to closedry.,._r, ,o
elitistassumptions- attitudesthat are xenophobic,
pha.llocratic
or whatever.
But such re-territoriarizations,
to rhe exteni that they take efrectvia creative
collectivities,can open whole new perspectives.
In fact, there is a vast
differenceberrveenthe neurotic encirclementof
a subject.ir,.itv
er_,gaged
in a
processof personologicarindividuation, and the idiosyncrasies'of"groups
r v h i c ha r e p r e g n a n r v i t hp o s s i b i l i t i eosf c h a n s e
ofall kinds.
As a final example, take rhe caseof a psJ,chotic
child banging its head
againsta u'a.llday after da,v.A machine ol'seltdestructrve
isworkins
loutssance

8o

lnstitutional PsychotheraPY

alvayon its ou,n,entirelyout ofanyone'scontrol.How could the desireenergy

be related in any wav to collective
of banging-one's-head-against-the-u'all
It is not a matter ol'transposingor sublimatingthis activitv,but
engagement?
cif getting it to function on a semioticregisterthat can be connectedup to
systems;not of curbing the desireor changingits
certainother non-signif,ving
openingup ne\.r'possibilities,
trbjects,Lrutofbroadeningthe field afjouisnnce,
Yet it rvili be di{Iicult to fruslrate attempts !o use repressionand enforce
centredon
adaptationunlessone can make it abundantlyclearthatjoaissrznce
t h e r g n e l r r a l s l e a d st o t h e : e m p t a t i o nt o g i v e i t i t s e x t r e m ee x p r e s s i o-n i n
impotenceand destruction.
has to
doesnot mean that a sLrbject
Emergencelrom destructivenarcissisrn
go through a processof being repressedin reality or being castratedin
phantasy:on the contrary, it meansachievinggreaterpotencyand neutralizing the {brcesof alienation. It is thereforeessentiallya matter of gaining
power over the real, neverjustof manipulatingthe phantasiesor the symbols.
Ferna.adDeligny doesnot repressor interpret:he helpsthe riebilitatedwith
whorn he lives to succeedin trying out other objectsand relationships,to
succeedin building up anotherworld.
it tends
Analysisaimed at re-adjustmentdevelopsa politicsof significance;
to reducethe horizonofdesireto the controlofthe other,to the appropriation
ofbodies and organs;it seeksto return to a Pure awarenessofthe senseofselL
Schizo-analysis,on the other hand, rejects the'will to identity', and all
signifying personologicalspecifications,especiallythose relating to the fam'
ily. It abandons strategiesof power in lavour of an organlessbody that
de-individuatesdesireand is ready to seeit expressedby way of non-semiotic
cosmic fluxes and non-signilying socio-historicfluxes.
In the traditional analytic approach, whenever one passesfrom a presignifying semiotic to a signif,vingsemiotic,there is a lossofsatisfaction,a new
scopefor guilt feelings,a manifestationof the super-ego.When a child plays
'matter' involved (this is a very important
with its shit there is a certain
point). When an analytic interventiontries to transform this pleasure,this
matter, into a semiotic substancethat can be translatedand interpreted
according to the dominant code, it ends by mutilating or destroying it,
'signifyingsemioticcounterpart'that replacesthe organless
attachingit to a
body" Programming individuals, conditioning them to the idea that their
desirescan always be translated into something else, is what normative
institutionshave always spent their time doing. Far from changingthings,
psychoanall'sismerely brings an improved technology to bear on precisely
the sametype of project.
It remirinsto be seenwhat is the rationalelor this psychoanalyticpplicv of
presented itselfat this point as
desire. Why has psychoanalysis
emascr-rlating
religion?Whoseproblemsare they ultimatelv?Essentiaia kind of s'.rbstitute

The Role of the Signifierin the Institution

Br

iy. they relateto thosepor+,ergroups

whoseinterestit is to seethat all praxis
shouldbecometransferable,indefinitelytransposable
in termsof an economy
ofdecodedfluxes;essentiallyto capitalism(and in future perhapsto bureaucratic socialismas well?)in that it is basedon laws that establishtire eenera.l
equivalenceand interchangeabilityof all semiotic expressions.of course
jouissance
is stiil possiblein such a system, but only on conditionthat the libido
conforms with the dominant norms. Nera,and peculiar types of perverts
develop within it - for instance, the bureaucraticpervert, whose curious
pleasureshave been so marvellouslyexplored by Kafka. The power of the
bureaucracykeepsgrowing like a cancerin the labric ofindustrialsocieties,
to
the advantageofthe'elites' that have accessro its bene6ts.But sincethereis
room lor few at the top, and getting there is expensiveand needsspecial
preparation and education, the rejects of desire are innumerable. Their
enjoymentof what capitaiismhas to o{reris reducedto a fling at rhe berting
shop on Sunday morning, and the joys of football on rhe TV on Sunday
afternoon.But there are equally innumerablerejectsfrom the betting shop
and the lootball games)with the result that a whole massof peopleend up in
ps1'chiatrichospitals,homesfor the maladjusted,re-trainrngschemes,prisons and so on.

Towards a Micro-Politicsof Desire 83

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire'

Introduction
Structurnlistanalysestrv to mask the basicduality betweenconrentand form
Lrl attending only to form, setting the content in parentheses,believingit
lcgitimate to separate rvork relat.ingto content lrom u'ork relating to lornr.
'firis
is one wav of r:rganizirrgthe niconnaissance
of the political origins of the
lvav contentis lormaiized.What u,eshould be doing is to comparea political
genealoeyof significativecontentswith the wavs in which the speechacts of
translcrrmationaland generative grammars are produced. Structuralists
seemio find no problem of semantics.Tfie semanticcomponentappearsor
d(-)es
not appear at this or thatjuncture, but they take it as read, as going
without sayine,and neverquestionit as such.
No one is concernedto discoverthe particular lorm ofstructuring ofeach
tvpe r,'fcontent;the!'are by u'ay of believingrhat the problemof lormalizingit
onl"' a1rps315
once it is caught up in the form/content relationship,and
e\rerythins to do u,ith determining the origin of that lormalism is then
translerredto the signifier,the chainsofsignifiers.Yet it is alw,aysa specific
politicai and social order that moulds them. There is nothing auromatic
about the structuringofcontents:the socialsituationis not a superstructural
content rnechanicallydeterminedbv an economicinfrastructure)any more
than the semantic territorv is mechanicallv determined by a signi$,ing
structure' or the various manilestationsof a primitive societv bv the
elementarvstructuresol'lamilial relationships.
J'crtll to explain complexsocio-historical
structuresin termsof a mechanism oi'exchange,
or lan{uagein ternrsofa svstemoflogical transformation,or
desirein terms of the operation ola signilyingsystemand rhe phantasiesit
generates,is to trl' to avoid questioningthe operationsofporr,erthat control
the socialsphereat every level. It is not a matter ofproducing a universal
form:riismas such.but of the way a svstemof power comesto usethe meansol
a sigiriiyingformalismto uni{i'all the variousmodesof expression,
and centre
thernaround irs orvn 'fundamentai'values- respectlor propertv.lor persons,
i . F r o n : a c o ur s eq iv c n r o t h e s t u d e nt s a r R c e d H a l l , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s it l , N e w Y o r k . p a r r so i - i t
h a v r S r r r r p u b l i s h c Ci t S e m i t t t c a
x tn, d i n a n i s s u eo f Q ai n I r o n o u ro f C h r i s r i a n M e t z - .N { r r . i q 7 5 .

'right'
lor ranks, lor sexual.racial and age hierarchies,for the
of the ruling
produc!.ion
classto seizethe meansof
lrom the workersand so on.
In reality, therefiore,
we are neverdealingt,ith an abstractstructure,a kind
of ideal game of chess,a iogical mould shaping all significantcontents.All
contents,before being structured by language,or 'like a language',are
structured at a multitude of micro-politicallevels.It is preciseiythis lact
which justifies the lact that a micro-politicalrevolutionaryaction makesit
possibleto relati',,izethe'dominant significations'and to neutralizethe forms
of indication and regulationput forward bf the structuralists.Denying the
lunction of power in representationimplies a refusal to make a micro-political
commitmentwhereverit may be needed,in other rvordswhereverthere is a
signification.
lVhat we ha.,'eto do, then, is to get rid of this great oppositionbetweenthe
contentand the form, rvhichresultsin separatingthe two and.leavingthem in
some sensindependentof one another, and, on the contrary, try to find
connecringpoints,points ofmicro-politicalantagonismat everylevel.Every
power lormation organizesits own s.vstemof verbal packagingfor what it has
to say. The expressionmachine,which extendsover all theseformations,is
to centralizeand rendertranslatthereonly to normalizelocalficrmalizations,
able the unchanging signification recognizedby the dominant order, to
demonstratea ionsensus- what Louis Hjelmslev terms the level of the
immediatesubstance,and definesas a collectiveapperception.
What goeson betweencontent and lorm is the stabilizingof the relation'
ships of de-territorialization.The a-signify'ingsign machine, the sl,stemof
figuresof expression(still using Hjelmslev'sterms), comesinto existenceat
the point where all signifyingsemiologiesmeet. Its role is similar to the role
the State plays in relation to the variousfactionsofthe bourgeoisie,that of
orderingand hierarchizingthe pretensionsofthe diflerentiocal groups.The
non-signifyingexp{essionmachine (on the level of the signifier) organizesa
system of empty words and interchangeabilityfor all the territorialized
systems of words produced by the manifold local agenciesof power. (We may
instancethe power of the lamily over the production of nice speech,or the
powerof the schoolover the productionof nice writing, discipline,competition, hierarchy, etc.) Thus, bv means of a non-signifvings)'stemof expressiona moderateregime of de-territorializationbecomesstabilized,and
capturesand regulatesrelativede-territorializations
of lormalisrnsofcontent.
FranqoisJacob suggeststhat 'natural' encodingmight function in three
dimensions.Todorov reckonsthat symbolicsemiologiesspecificallyinvolve
two dirnensions.Only linguistic encoding is left functioning on a linear
svstem(and in a wav that FrangoisJacob insistsmust be carefullydistinguishedlrom geneticencoding,which is relativelylessde-territorialized).If
we lollorvtheseauthors,then, we ma.vbelievethat the modesof encodinggo

8,1 Institutional PsYchotheraPY

and di{Ierentiationin so far as
through a kind o{'processof moiecularization
ptive
perce
of
strata
":"1
:tp,:tj:::i:1":
rhe], relate to lineuistic ,t*tu' tht
this tendency to oeextending
imagine
ii".g"i"i. strata. One can even
semioticsof the sciences'rvhich abanterritorializationwith the a-signifying
lu"guugt by introducing sy:teTs-?f
don thc c,ne-dimensron"l;;"t'lt* oi
-".riete-siqn:;Inoointoffa.t,thedifferencebetweenrhesignandrnhatit
.
tS
ofl lits
O
r- .-:.^^r^--a\
c a p n r c lto
^ llose
o s e ssome
ome
instance) seems
for
sigrtifies(in theoretrcarphytic''
particleofa
proofofthe existence
relevance.No one toa"y ai*unds positiue
without any contradictionin the totality
fu''tction
to
made
be
carr
il
as
so long
when an extrinsic'experimentaleflect
of theoreticalsemlottcas a whole' Onlv
doeshindsightquestionthe exrstoPeratloll
into
brings the semioticsvstem
woulclbe meaningless'It is onlv
enceolthe particle. U"'ii^iftt", the question
totalitv that the
e.xcludedt'v tt"'t ttttotttic-cum-experimental
;;;t";.i;d
existenceOne has
negative
charge-of
a
kindof
particleretroactivel,vutqui"'
demonstrationofthe particle'sexistencc;
then no longerto givea step-b1'-step
- objectiveof materializing its
one has given up the hiiherto fundamental
spaceand time This type of
in
it
existenceby the physicaieffectof locating
in other words entities thar
ser.iotic involves ."r,at'*. .^rt particie-;igns,
the sign and the
and existence'Betr'veen
eludethe coordinatesof rime, space
direct' but
longer
no
of relarionship'
referent there is no* o r,.r" lvpe
gagement'
involf ing a r.'holetheoretic-cum-experimental-en
\\rithr]on-sienilying-rernioti.rofthiskind,*e-ha"tleftthesphereof
the potenc'vof machinic engagement'
semiologicalpo',".rl.uir"" for that of
physics could equall-vbe
'fhe
exarrrplef f,"t. ttg;t'ted frorn theoretical
so
on'
and
artistic
social'
,"orked out in other domains
relationto signification'
in
politics
possible
two
u"
In mv vierv,ttt.tt, titttt
expectsthere{oreto find
and
i{Iect'
Either one acc,pt,\t d'i'i' u'an inlvitable
contextof a particular
the
deJacto'1n
\t
ott"ptt
it itt evervsemioriclet'ef o' on"
a generalizedn-rtcro'n'ith
it
cou^nter
to
proposes
and one
f,riiri."r systern,
in such a way as to
within'
.iruggrc that can undermine it lrom
il;t.;i
the t1'rannvof the
lrom
escape
to
enable all the tntenstvemultiplicities
a whole host of
means"is-unleashing
this
signifying over-encoding'What
of
of
ichizophrenics'
children'
a,-,cle*periJentations thoseof
expi'essions
trate
pene
to
work
all
that
everykind
no[o..*uoi., of priioners' of misfitsof
order' to feelout new escaperoutes
una .u, ir-,,othe semiologyof the dorninant
of a signifvingparticle-signs'
.onsrellations
.r,J pr"ar.. nervand ,,L,ir.o.d-of
and Semiotics
I)esire Minorities, Psychoanalysis
rviderthau that providedby
has Iong enjoyedan audiencelar
Psychoanall'sis
.|o
hastrieclto definea norm the bourrdarv
ils orvn adePts. tnt J*"tlt that it
- it hasstrayed
behaviour
human
in
betn een the normal ond th" pathological

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire 85

onto political ground. This is becausethe social forcesthat the processof
capitalistproductionhas to deal with are directly concernedby the definition
of any such systemol norms, any such model for living, any such model of
desiring subjectivitv,correspondingto the sort of'normal' individual required by the system.In earlierages,religiousor philosophicaldisputesstood
in the samerelationshipto the field ofsocialstrugglesas psychoanalysis
does
today. But the policy of psychoanalysis
consistsabove all in claiming to be
altogetheroutside the political field, to be consideredas an objectivescience.
It hassoughtto takeits standon varioussciences-biology,physicsand, more
recently,mathematicsand linguistics- but has reallysucceeded
only in aping
them. Furthermore, it has never managed to get a\\,ay lrom the kind of
sectarianismthat makes psychoanalyticsocietieslook more like corporations
fighting for their own intereststhan bodiesworking for the advancementof
science.Having failed to find any seriousscientific support, psychoanalysis
has retreated into a flurry of 'literary' activity which has done littie to
enlightenanyoneas to what it actuallvdoes.
Freudianism,at the sametime as discoveringthe scopeof our unconscious
investmentsof desire,selsabout dispellingtheir 'evil spells'.From the start,
psychoanalvsis
ried to make sure that its categorieswere in agreementwith
the normativemodelsof ttreperiod. It thus contributedto settingup a further
barrierto desire;it arrived in the nick oftime,just as crackswereappearingin
a lot ofrepressiveorganizations- the lamily, the school,psychiatryand so on,
But what it did was to set up a more internal barrier which restrainedthe
subjectiveeconomyoldesire more closely,taking hold of it in the cradle,and
trving never to let go. There are no limits to the ambition of psychoanalytic
control; if it had its way, nothing would escapeit, since it is concerned
simultaneouslywith madness,dreams,deviationsof everykind, art, history,
the primitive world, and even the most minor motions of everyday life, the
tiniesterror or slip. All non-sensemust thus yield to its explanatorynet, must
fit into the compassof its comprehension.Take homosexuality,lor instance:
psychoanalysisclassesit as a pen,ersion,defining it as a fixation at an
inlantile stage- a stage defined in turn as pre-genital and 'polymorphously
perverse',So, by the use of a supposedlyobjectivedescription,it implicitly
sanctionsa norm, a correct genitality, a legitimate form of desire which
automaticallydisallowsthe desireof children, homosexuals,the mad, even,
whenit comesdown to it, of women,or of youngpeoplewho havenot yet fully
acceptedthe marriage/familv orthodoxy.
To the extent that a revolutionary strugglemanagesto break alvay lrom the
dominantmodels,and especiallyfrom that model of models,capital (which
consists
in reducingthe multiplicitiesof desireto a singleundifferentiated
flux
-of workers,consumers,etc.); to the extent that it managesto break away
lroma Manicheist,black-and-whitesimplificationof the classstluggleand to

86

Institutional Ps.vchotherapy

accepilhe plurality of desiringcomnrirmentsas possrblelinls benveenpeople

in revolt and the revolution; to thar exrent it will be led to take account of
'normirlity" and to seek
about
minoritiesof ;rll ki1ds, without any pre.judices
For ther.eto be such a change,we should have frrst to identifv
their s1p-rport.
rvith its legirimationofand neutralizethe mocielsassumedb.vpsychoanalysis,
and of assumec
of
Oedipus
the
dogma
fit
in
to
the repressionof desire
"vith
t a n r p e 6 p l st o d a ya g r e er h a t n o r e v o i u t i o n a r sy t r u g g l ei s
c i . r r a r i u n .A q r . e am
really possibleanv longer that doesnot a/socommit itselfto the liberationof
desire.But \^,eare sriil unableseriouslyto contemplateopeningup neu'fronts
dilernma:
of clesire,becauseu'e are still trappedbv the classicps-ychoanalytic
as far.asdesireis concerned)its porveris dangerous,destructive,incapable
o l a n v t h i n gc o n s t r u c t i v e :
as lar as our egoand our societvare concerned,thereis tlreworld ofreality
rvith whicl-r.1,1emLlStsomehou'or other come tO terms, to which one must
submit, evenrhough later claiming that orredid so becausethat was tile onll
w a y o f o b t a i n i n sm a s t e r ) ' o fi t ,
Yet surel,vthc-real madnessis to be four]d,fir'stand forenrost,at the core ol
Surelvreasonis to [e found' first and foremost,at
the capitalistorder as sr,tcli!
disruptir.e and
the core of the maddest desirel Desire is not necessaril,r'
be
seenas more
can
of
authoritv,
Desire.oncefreedfr.omthe control
a_narchic.
than the
skilful
engineer,
more
and
organizer
better
a
realistic,
real arlrirnore
raving rationalismttf the plannersand administratorsof the presentsvstem.
creation- thesethings prolileratefrom desire,not from
Science,ir-rnovation,
of the technocrats.
the pscrrclo-rationalism
movementand should
is no science:it is a politico-religious
Psvchoanalysis
be treated in the same !!'av as all tlie other movementsthat have proposed
moclels of behaviourfor particular timesat'rdcontexts.Its conceptionof desire
o n l l I i t i s a h e a do n l l i n p c r t e c t i n gt h e
i s . a h e a co
l f irs time'in appearance
support required by the logic of the system,and overhaulinga
r.epressive
represtecirniqueof interpretingand re-directingdesireand of internarlizing
call
colLectiw
would
what
I
is.
in
brief,
siotr. Tlte object of ps)rchoanaiysis
into operatione\/erYthingthat militates
I.taranoia in other lr'ords,bringing
desirein the socialsituatiot'r.Belorestudying
againstan.,,liberationo1'schizo
the particular',extremepositionofpsychoanalvsisacrossthe spectrumofthe
variousdegreesofthat collectiveparanoia,let us first considerthis functionrn
itselfand G. role it plavs in the socialspherein general.onll'after that shall
rests,and
u,etrr- ro identil! the specificnlechanismson which psychoanalysis
rvill
be to
aim
our
intensifred.
u,hoseiunctioning has in some sensebeen
complementar.v
the
paranoia.
collective
of
ola
coelncient
the nature
ciefir-re
anci inverse coellicient I posited some ten )ears ago as a'coettrcient of
transversaliil.".
I shali encleavourhere t0 set rid of the notronof two opposin.s.realities,one

Towards a Mioo-Politics of Desire g7

objective,the other subjective,and replaceit with that ortwo possible
roliricr:
a poli ticsofinterpretationthar keepsgoingover and over the pastin the realm
ofthe unconsciousphantasy,and a politicsofexperimentationthat takes
hold
of the existingintensitiesof desireand forms itselfinto a desiringmechanism
in touch with hi.storicalsocial reality. Interpretation or experimentation,
's.cientific'
psychoanalysis
or rhe politicsofdesire?To get to the roorsofthese
alternatives,we shall have to get back ro rhe origins ofpsychoanarysis
and
politics as they normally appear,and try to seehow eachofthem
relaresto
language. lVe make our interpretations with words, whereas we
clo our
exp.erimenting*'ith signs, machinic funcrions,anci engagements
of things
and people.At first sight, it would seem that the t'6,omusr remain
suite
separate, How can the introduction of polirics contribute to clarifying
matters?one would have said that feelings,action, theory and machinisni
mark offdifferent orders of things that should nol be confused:yet
it seems
to me to be 'itar to prevent their crystalizing into compretely
separate
s tr at a .
!'rom this we shall have to go back still further, within the framework
o{'
linguistics,and considerthe possib.iliry
ora semioticthat could explain both
the functioningofthe word as signifierand that ofscienrificsigns,technical/
scientific mechanismsand sociaiforces.we should then find oirselves facing
a fundamentalpolitical dilemma within one and the samesemioricwhole,
a
whole capable of opening out into non-signifying semioticsand alrowing
for
the transition of rhe objective sciencesinto signifying and subjectivizing
langr-rages.
srudents of semioticsare already aiviaea into thosewho relati
semiotics to the sciencesof language, and those who consider language
merelyone among other instancesof the functioningof a generarsemiolic.'It
seemsto me that the result of this debateis that, in the first case,desire
gets
boggeddorvn in the Imaginary by becoming invested in a system otsigiificant flights *hich I shail call paradigmatic perversion,whereas.
in' the
second,it participatesin a-signifyingsemioticengagemen!s
invorvingsignsas
well as things' individuals as well as groups, o.gun, u. well
as fori., o.
machines'The politicsof the signifierlead to a signmachinemarking
our rhe
territorialized fluxes - by means of a limited collection of discrete, ,digitalized'sisns- and retainingoniv ffuxesof inlormarionthat can be
decoded.The
role of that sign machine is to produce, in Hjelmsrev'sterm, ,semioticalry
formed substances',that is to say strata of exp;essionwhich rbrm
a connection betweenthe two domains formalized at the level ofexpressionand
that of
content;for linguistic anaiysts,this operation produces
an effectofsignification.The totalitv of intensivereaiitv is rhen .processed'
bv the formaizing
duo, signifier/signified;the totarity of fluxes is held in tl",e.snapshot'
o?
significationwhich placesan objectfacinga subject;the movement
oidesireis
sterilizedby a relationshipolrepresentation;the image becomes
the memory

BB InstitutionalPsychotherapy
of'a realitv made impotent, and its imrrobilization establishesthe rvorld of
dominant sienificationsand receivedideas.
T h i s o p e r a t i o no { ' c o n t r o l l i n a
g l l t h e i r r t e n s i vm
e u l t i p l i c i t i e cs o n s t i t u t e tsh e
fir'st act cri political violence. The relation between the sienifier and the
significd(which Peirceseesas corl\'entional,Saussureas arbitrarr,)is at root
merelv the expressionof authorit,vby meansof signs.The expressionof the
conrext,of what is implied and presupposed,
in other words of all that relates
rnorc or lessclosel.vto the interactiono{'authority'andof desire,is dismissed
bl,specialistsin the human sciencesas being outsidethe termsof their studv,
'offthe
subject',rather as a judge misht cail to order a witnesswho will not
stick to the questionbeingasked,or a sroup of policemenwili lorciblv remove
bystandersr'r'hoare watching them ill-treatingsomeone.The establishment
of meanings.of rvhat is to be understood.has to remain the businessof
authoritv.
Tools of expressionare plovided tor thosewho usethernin the same',vavas
spadesand picks are handed or,rtto pnsoners.The pensar"rdexercisebooks
given to schoolchildrenare toolsof production,and teachinqis proerammed
to produce onlv a certain tvpe olacceptablesignifications.There can be no
ol which no one must plead
escape,The first commandment of the 1211,,
ignorance, is Lused above all on the need for evervone to realize the
importanceof the dorrinant signi6cations.
All the intensitiesof desiremust be
subject to the rule of the formalizing duo, expressionand content, as
elaboratedin the context of pre',,ailingproduction relations.Apart from
madnessand t-rtherescapesfrorn the rneaninglessness
olthe sYstem.that is.
The Signs Pervade even Physical Fluxes
trt is not easv io extricate oneself from the politics of signification and
i n t e r p r e t a t i o nI.n t h e h u m a n s c i e n c e sa, c e r t a i nf a s h i o no f a p i n g ' s c i e n t i f i c
rigour'. wirich draws attention ar.vavlrom the political issues at stake,
inevitablv leads to a concealeddependenceon those metaphvsicalparal o e i s m sa. l w a v st h e s a m e ,t h a t b e a ro n r e a i i t y - t h e s o u la n d s i g n i f i c a t i o n .
f'ake. fbr instance,the researchinto communicationnow eoing on in the
U n i t e d S t a t e s :w h a t i s i r b u t a n o b j e c t i v i s tt r a p , a l a l s e a l t e r n a t i v et o
The researchersrvorking at the l\{ental Repsychoannlltic sub.jectivism?
search Institute of Palo Alto, w,ith Gregory Bateson. exarnine on.ly the
'behaviour' the_vbelievecan be consideredas a 'term of communication'.'
Transposirrethe subdivisionsuggestedby Carnap and Morris into syntactics, semanticsand pragmatics, thev end bv separating,in the name of
s e n r a n i i c rosn, ed i m e n s i o no f c o m m u n i c a t i o nw. h i l es t i l l m a i n t a i n i r rag c e r t a i n
. . B e a v i n .D . . l a c k s o n ,P r n g m a t i cott l l u n a n C o m m u n i t a t i o\ V
r . P . \ \ ' a t z l a r v i c k . . JH
n ,. W . N o r t o n ,
N c u Y o rk . r o i l :

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire gg

externalrelationto it. According to them, behaviouris mereiva ,pragmatic
of
communication'iit is whollv devotedto the transmissionof inlormation,
to
t h e c i r c u l a r i n go f s l m b o l s b e t w e e nu t r e r e ra n d r e c e i v e r a, n d t o t h e i r
feedb a c k .T h e ' s e m a n c i c p
' r e s u p p o s i t i oonf t h i s s y s t e mo f i n t e r c o n r m u n i c a t i o n s
'sender
restsupon the idea that the
and receiver'of the symbolstransmitted
has 'agreedbeforehandon their significance'.His behaviouris thus reduced
to a flux of inficrmation,or at least to dependenceon that flux. But what
of
desirein all this exchangingof information?Is a manilesrationof desirea
jamming of the transmission,a noise,or sheerderight
at a clear receptionof
the nressaee?All that these researchersseem interested in is tire
wav
inlormation is organized syntacticaily and the pragmatic srrategy
of be'haviour' l\'hen it comesto the meaning,they stop: it seemsto be something
that thev rhink goeswithout saying. It could hardly relate to anything
bul
philosophy.syntax depends on rhe nobre scienceof mathemaiicar
iogic.
Pragmatics.however,belongspurelv and simply to psychology.
can one at least say rhar this di'ision inio three is a rereaserrom
the
despotismcf the signifier?No, for behaviouristcommunicationis still
deoendenton_the mvsteryofsignification.They can only keepit at a distance,
and
in lact it r.r'illahvays continue to influence every stage of behal,iour.
More
porverfullythan ever,in fact,lor its beingrelegatedto the statusofthe impricit
meansthat it will trigger off an even more demanding formalism.
it.y
remainthe priso'ers ola supposedlyimmediateapperceptionofsignification,
of a signify'ingsemiologicalcogito.
h is only in upp.urun.., then, rhar this
neo-behaviourist
schoolhas avoidedbeingboggeddown in the psvchoanalyticals,vstemof signification,Indeed, one may wonder whetherihere has
not
beena kind ofdivision oflabour among thosewho have set out to
analvse
behaviour on rhe basisof inlormation theory and thosewho ha'e decided
to analvseits significantcontent on the basisof the oedipalist interoretation,
For the former, 'behaviour'is reducedto one of two 'binary digits,,while
lor the latter it is triangulatedlone may similarly fiid oneseliwolnd.rirrn
u,
theanalogousproceedingsundertakenby structuralistanthropologir,,,ut.n
thevinsiston understandingprimitive societiessolelyin termsof rheir
lamilv
relationships,which they then reduce to a logic of exchange,
o. ut th"
goings-on
ofliterary sectsthat are religiouslydeJicatedto ro-.il.d readings
o f a ' t e x t 'b t ' i t s e l f l
whate'er is takenas the gauge,whetherit be the signifier,the iibido
or the
matrimonialunit of excha'ge,the method is the same:what is constant
is the
idea that one must discover a univocal rererencepolnt, a transcendant
invariable,not itselfsignificative,rvherebyto explain rhe sum ofthe
sisnificativearrangements, One setsout in searchof a mechanism_ no, u rnuJhina.
which is a very di{rerentthingr - rhat wourd fix the fluxes,determine
the

go

Institutional Psychotherapy

intersections,identi{v certain fixed points, stabiiizethe structuresand provide a reassuringfeelingof hai.'ingat last got hold olsomethingquasi-eternal
in the human sciences,while at the sametime absolvingthe researcherfrom
all political responsibility.This certainlyseemsto be the sensein which one
could understandone leaturethat is common to the di{Ierentdisciplinesthat
usethis method,in which we may find the kev to the motivationbehindsuchat first sisht surprising.-mergersas that ofpsvchoanalysis
and behaviourism
in Bateson, that of a linguistic dominated b1, diachronic phonology and
Lacanian psychoanalysis
in Laing, that of the epistemological
tradition and
Nlarxism in Althusser,and so on.
Our aim is not to blur the differences
among the varioussemioticmachines,
but, on the contrary,to seeas clearl_v
aspossi.ble
rvhatis specificto each,nor to
make one dependenton another as does a thinker like Benvdniste- who
concludesthat sinceeverysemiologl'ofa non-linguisticsvstemhas to make
use of languageas an interpreter, it 'could onl.v exist through and ln the
semioiosycillanguage'.'With this in rrind, I proposethe lollowing classific;rtion of'the modesof encoding:non-semiotic'natural' encoding,signifi,ing
semioloqies,
and non-signilyingsemiotics.
r" Non-semiotic'natural'

chains of encoding

These do not involve a specificsemioticstratum. As with geneticcoding,for

example, they are lormed out of the same tvpe oi material as the encoded
biologicalJ'luxes.
There is no diflbrentiationor independence
as betweenthe
biologicalstratum - the encodedobject - and the informationalone. It is
simpl,vthat certain of the elementsolthe fluxesof energyand the biological
fluxes are so speciaiizedas to be able to do the work ol transmitting and
procltrcir-rg
the code.Sincethe stullof the expressionis not actuallva stratumzr specilic semiotic substance- no direct translation lrom one system ol
encodingto ilnotheris possible. The biologistwho makesa modelof the RNA
and DNA chainsis transposingthesesrructuresinto a s,vstemof signs,thus
producing ari entirelv nerv basisof expression.It is a very different matter
when a signifyingsemiotictransfersa message,lor instancea visual message
by n'ay oflfertzian lvaves,to be reconstitutedon the televisionscreen:in this
case there is a continuing transmissionof the encoded forms from one
substanceto another;that it can be translatedis due to the independenceof
the strata ofexpression;it is becauseit has beenpossible!o'extract'the lorm
ofdistinct substancesthat it could be transoosed.

c , . S e m i r t t eroq,6 9 , r . z , \ { o u t o n . H e a i s o t a l k so 1 ' s e m i o t i cr n o u l d i n t ' b v I a n g u a g er,h e p r e em i n en c e o l t h e s i g n i ! i n g s y s t e m .et c .

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire gr

z. Semiologies of signification
These are constituted lrom specific strata of expression.They may be
subdivided into two categories- those that depend upon a muiilpticiiy ot
strata,and thosewith only two:
(a) svmbolic semiologies:
The exp.essionof primitive societies,
orthe mad,
of children, erc. brings into play a multiplicity of strara - expressionbv
g e s t u r e .b ' r i t u a l , b y w o r d s , b y w h a t t h e l . m a k e , s . x r a l
e x p r e s s i o na n d
so on - but none of these is fully autonomous;rhey overlap,
one blending into another,without any one over-encodingthe othersin any
continuing
way.
(b) signif,vingsemiologies:
with modern languages,all this muitipricity of
expression,all thesestrata- speech,mime, singing,etc._ become
dependent
on a signifving arche-writing. The semiotic machine norv works
onry by way
of two strata: that on which contentsare formalized,and that
on which
expressionis lormalized.In point of fact, theseare not realiy two
strataat all,
but onlv one: the stratum of signifyingformarizationwhich, from a restrictei
stock of figures of expression, establishes a bi-univocar correspondence
betweena particularorganizationof the dominantreality and a formalization
of representation,Indeed, significativerepresentations- the concepts
of
saussure- only seanto be structured on an autonomous stratum ofcontent,
they only seemto'inhabit'a sour, populate a heaven with ideas o, o.guni".
themselvesinto the cult-objects of everyday life. The signifying
sei,iotic
sustainsthe illusion that a level of'the signified'existsin order to delay,
or
interferewith, or even prevent,a direct conjunctionbetweensign -achines
and real machines. once we come to question the two fundamental
levelsof
the signifying semiotic, u,e are equaily forced to question the yalidity
of the
doublelinguisticarticulation.The fact is that what is supposedto gru.unt..
the constitutionof autonomousmeaningfulsoundsis the establishment
of
their paradigmatic relationshipswith specified,formarizedand srructured
contentson an autonomouslevel; but ifthat level,far lrom corresponding
to
the iogical organization imagined by structural or generative semantic;
is
merely an aggregateof balancesof lorces,compromisesand approximations
ol all kinds, then the whole sructural legitimacy of the signifier/signified
relationshipis compromised.
The signifying semioticsof double articulation involve signs characterized
.
by three functions: denotation, representation and signifi-cation.Denoting
establishesa relationship berweenthe sign and the thing designated.It
is thl
referential function, and implies or presupposesthe realit"y of the
thing
denoted.Denotingis in fact a key elementin the constitutionof the dominanl
reality.with representation,the totalitv of the productiveconnectivesynthesesbecomecut up into a denoted(or indexed)reality and a world olimages,

q2

Institutional Psl'chotheraPY

of represcntative,figurative or relationalimages'The sum of thoseimages

constitutestvhat we alreaccustomedto call our mental world. Signification
resuits fiom relating the signifring basrs of that representationto that
representationit..lf.llhu. the sign never rel'ersdirectly to the realitv, but is
alivays lorced to go bv way of the world of representation,The linking
,og.rh.. ofsigns around a syntagmaticaxis, the function ofsignrficance,is,
to ie'vi^iste, inseparableirom the functionof interpreting,which
ac-cording
orders the signson a paradigmaticaxis, relatesthem to the world of things
signified,und p..*o,1.ntly distancesthem lrom all the intensitiesof realitv.
T'ire play of stgnifications,their proliferation,their being out of gear with
b..our. of the autonomy and arbitrarinessol the ivay the
.epre.sentationi,
it openspossibi'
stockofsignifiersoperates)I-rascontradictoryconsequences:
all direct access
cut
offfrom
a
subject
produces
it
also
lities for c,ieativitv,but
(eilects
explored by
ghetto
in
a
signi{,v'ing
imprisoned
zr
subject
reality,
to
N{auriceBlanchotin the realm ofliterature). It is true that the lormalization
ofsignificantexpressiondevelopsin accordancein'itha certain {brmalizationof
signifiedcontenrs;but it would bi: a mistaketo think that the two formalizatiJns are generatedin the sameway. The formalizationof expressiondepends
on a pariicular lineuistic machine, a restrictedgamut of discrete'disconnectedsigns.The lbnnalizationof the contentdependson the power balance
in societ,v,on a mass of interactions,of machinesand of'structureswhich
coulclnot oossiblybe reduced to one homogeneousplane ol meaning' The
iilusionof the doubiearticulationconsistsin flatteningout this multiplicitv ol
on the signil.vingmachine by using the fiction ol a level of
inter.rsities
represenlailon.
Intensitieshavethus beendoublv reduced:first to fit the signifiedcontents'
r. whosedespoticambition is to put everythingthat
and then to fit the sigr.rifie
a processolrepetition that alwaysbringsit back to
it
through
could represent
itsell-.This makeseverythingappear normal, logical,lormalized.The uttcrancesof the significantsemioticstructuresare formulatedover a stratum of
impotentization,and echoand re-echoendlessly the echobeing the effectaJ
autonomizesand llattens
controls,
together.
draws
signilier
the
signifcation:
the signified.As well as being separatedliom real productions,theseuttern,-r...ur. alienatecilrom the understandingthe subjectis supposedto haveof
their signilication,and lrom the adherencehe is supposedto give them. The
intensitiescan now onlv be noted, controtedas having to remain oulside the
semioticsphere,r,vhichmeans,in the last resort,outsidethe politicalsphere.
'fhe
formalization of the content thus produces a subjectivity that is
essentiallycletachedfrom the real, empty and transparent.a subjectiyitvof
pure signifiir-igtllat respondsperfectiyto Lacan',sformula: a signifierrepresentsit lbr anothersignifier.This subjectivityhas to be accountedlor ulder
1vo heads- the subiectofthe statementand the subjectofthe utteranceofthe

Towards a Micro-Politicsof Desire 93

message.*Bv the eflectof a kind of meaninglessechoingback and forth, the
subjectofthe messagehas becomethe echo ofthe subjectolthe utterance.
Every utterance must ceasebeing polyvocal and, reducedto a bi-univocal
mode, be made to fit the subjectof the statement.This is the programmeof
linguisticOedipalization.(Linguisticanalystsmay then say rhar the subject
of the utterance is merely what remains of the processof uttering in the
processo1'the statement. I would turn this the other way round: what
concernsme is what remains of the processof uttering in the fact of the
utterance.)
\\'hat I want to recoverare the indices,the residualtraces,the escapes
into
transversality,of a collectivearrangementof utterancewhich, under whatevercircumstances,constitutesthe real productiveagencyofeverv semiotic
machinism. The programme ol linguistic Oedipalization also consisrsin
fbrmalizingthe subjectivationof statementsaccordingto an abstractencoding ofthe I-you-he type,which 'providesthe speakerswith a sharedsystentof
personalrelerences'5
and makes them able to adapt to the exchangeability,
the transposabilitland the universalitvof a given number of rolesthat they
.",t.0 upon to fill within rhe lramework of an economyof de-coded
;itlj:
- lor instancethe phenomena
Ilrve return to primitive modesof expression
of echo-namingamong the Guayakisdescribedby PierreCiastres- we find
that thev do not fall under this kind ofdespotismofthe signifier.6I am this,
but I am alsothat- There are no exclusivedisjunctivesyntheses.
I amJaguar,
but that Jaguar also refers to a lot of other things, and speaksfrom a
multiplicitvof centresof intensitv:to the messageJaguar'there correspond
severalrealmsolutterance.lVhen one ofthoseintensitiesis destroyed,as for
instancewhen the animal or man known asJaguardies,the message,though
cutofflrom its rea.lmof utterance,preservesall its lorce,
Its representationgoeson existingdespitethe abolitionofits referent.It is
not univocallvconnectedto a singlesignifier.It continues,it roamsabout, it
threatens,preciselybecauseno one knows what to relateit to. The sffata of
expression
are not regulatedhereby a signifyingcontrolthat condemnsevery
contentto a rigorous formalization,a residualor marginal representation;
here,this polyvocalconceptoryaguarbecomesthe objectofa fluid, uncertain,
waveringdenotation,a denotationunsureof itself,in somecasesevenwith no
basisat all, a pure denotation ofdenotation. The referencepoint tends to
becomethe denotation's being-in-itself,the expressionof the absenceof
4. It would be more correct to sav the rejection ofthe utterqqce.
linguistique
giniral.e,Gailimard, r 966.
5. Benviniste, ProbLimes
6. Chronique
deslndieu Cua2aki:,Plon, rg7z. This does noi by any means involve a return to lhe
'
n
o
b
l
e
myth of the
s a v a g e ' .T h e c r u e l r y - 6 f p r i m i t i v e s o c i e r i e si s q u i r e a s r e a l a s t h e r e r r o r o f
d e s p o t i s mo,r c a p i t a l i s tc y n i c i s m ,b u t i t d o e sn o t a c t t h r o u g h t h e s i g n i f i e r .

94 Institutional PsvchotheraPv
a blackhok in
anythingtltat can be described,an anxiety withou" an object'
the
black hole
But
wl'richthe st:n:ioticcomponerltsno longer act or exist
u'hat is^
and
irnpasse'
an
produccs a blar:k hole, the irlpasse produces
ol
instance
an
that
possibilitv
the
is
preventecl,
be
lnusl
,l,,rr]ling here, and
'modern' way - in other
a
in
operating
itself,
establish
might
cono.i.n-..
de-territorialize
uords, thar ;, iigr,ilj'ing semioticmight be in a position to
personological
it-universal
upon
irnposing
by
every unique ;,oiir:i"noldesire
in sonleu'ay couple
that
of
deicticsl
use
making
ail
by
above
and
,p..ifr.,r,i,,nr,
aggravatedwhen
rhe rrttclau*: to the subjectof the statement This dangeris
(b'v
death' dreams'
nature
in
let
loose
are
the sienifiedwitirout any referent
oldenotasvstem
territorialized
entire
ofthe
stabilitv
v,itchlrafi, erc.).'1'he
being repla.ced
of
danger
is
in
systern
semiotic
group
The
risk.
ar
i:i
then
r.i,:n
denotation'
b y a s y s t e m , ; l c o n s c i e n coef,i n d i v i d u a i i z e dt' o t a l l l ' t r a n s p a r e n t
-Ilhe
fou'dations'
verv
at
its
threatened
is
utterance
territoriaiized
collecii",,e,
The word
The .TaeuariWhat has he/it l;ecome,now'that this being is dead?
a word
alitl',
re
ci.c.,laie-.in people'sheads-- a word without a corresponding
life,
semictic
or.'n
lives
its
that
that respt,nclionlv to itself: a doubleno\^,exists
pounce
to
point'
relerellce
alternatil'e
sr)me
uPon
poinl to settle
reacll'aran1..
to
oltject.to underminethe dominant representatlonsr
upon any atnbisr.tt-,tts
machines'
desiring
of
the
of porveranclseizecontrol
expr,.ipriatethe-sources
.l-lte
organizationof the uttelance, as n'ell as the indi'iiduation
ter,.it0flnlizecl
fundamentallvor
c{'the subjectof the utieralce, thus seemt0 me to depend
has with'
production
desiring
thar
societv
given
in
a
reiationship
t!it spe,,ific.
to avert
in
motion
set
tLi: more cr lcssde-territorializediluxesand the rneans
thcrr.
g. Collective organizations of a-signifying semiotics
does not
fhe s\:,tem of signs lLlses.thealltononly of its stratification'but
refelringit to
it
merell'stops
of
encoding:
mode
the
naturai
fe
ro
tr.rrn
therebv
inlormation rvill be dissociatedfrom signification.
the signifier.Hencelbr.tl'r
of the
To bJrrc,r'ua phrase of Abrahan \'{oles" it becomesa measure
beopposition
marked
more
is
a
There
systems.s
machinic
r:umplexit-vlrf
is
clearlT
i.\!'een.on tlt.- one hand, the redtrndantforms in lvhich meaning
tendsto elude
spelleclour anci,on the other, an informativeexpressionwhich
'understand' in the equations of
to
nothing
ail unr.lerst:rnding(there is
r , r w l l a t e \ ' ' r t c r m c x p r { s s e st h i s b e s tt r l w h o e l e r i s t a l k i n g '
;. Or'.:lutlitcs'cr'gcar-lcvcrs'
in relation to thc patterns of
B. I rrusr makc it clear thar N{olesonlv envisagesthat dissociation
c
o
m
p l e x i t y ' o f am a c h i n e ( b a s e d
t
h
e
'
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
i
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
i
s
l
c
d
h
e
i
r
.
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
i r : r r : e p r i 0 ob; u i . t o
w i t h t h e ' f u n c t i o n a lc o m p l e x i t ' v '
o u , l , a i i , , q r " n . 1 t i t h r v h i c hi t s v a r i o u sc o n r p o n e npt a r t sa r e u s e d )
various functions occur'l Thioie dt
of on or(,tnirti (based on thc frequency with u'hich its
'':\l"attt'., ''
la7! P B?
n
t
t
D
c
n
'
r
t
i
.
t
h
i
t
i
g
r
r
,
1.1,?p'i

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire 95

theoreticalphysics).Macl-rinicinformatroneludesstructuralrepresentation;
'what addsto a representation',
that is to say the improbable,the
iI consistsof
non-redurldant,of a rent in the labric of the flux of signs and the fluxesof
things, and of the production of new conjunctions The doubles of representationare re-articulateddirectly onto production,or subsistas archaisms,
traces.lost dreams.9Once the chainshave lost their univocalcharacter,the
di{Ierencein value betweena reifyingdenotationand the connotationsoftht:
Imaginary becomesblurred.
Denotation disappearsin the face of the processdescribedby Peirceas
'diagrarlmatization',The function of re-territorializingimages,indexesand
conceptsis replacedb,vthe operationof signsas the foundationfor abstract
This operation
machinesand the simulationof physicalrnachinicprocesses.
condition
of signs,this work of diagrammatization,has becomethe necessarv
lor the de-territorializingmutationstl-rataffectti'refluxesof reality;no longer
is there representation,but simulation, pre-production,or what one might
'transduction'.The stratum of significationdisappears;no longer are
call
t h e r et w o l e v e l sa n d a s ) s t e mo f ' d o u b l ea r t i c u l a t i o nt;h e r ei s o n l ) ' a c o n s t a n t
return to the continuum of machinic intensitiesbased on a pluralisrn of
a r r i c uI at i o n s .
In this case, the points ofsubjectivation lose their function ofapparent
localizationof the production of significations,and of being the arena of
They no longerconstituteanything but
privatizedand Oedipalizedjouissance.
alongsidethe fundamental
subjectiveresidues,a de-territorializedjouissance,
process of machinic engagement. The imaginary individuation of
representalion- the figurativeof significations- givesway to lhe figural (in
Lyotard's sense)10;the fixed, syntactized,semanticizedand rhetoricized
gives way to a collectiveengagementof utterance
srratificationof messages
with unnumbereddimensions- a de-territorializedcollectir'eengagementin
which mankind no longel has pride of place.The individuatedsubjectof the
utterancehas remained imprisoned in the effectsof rneaning,that is, in a
re-territorializationthat has rendered itself impotent in signification.The
collectiveand machinicforceof utterance,on the other hand, is producedb,va
conjunction of power signs with de-territorializedfluxes. The realm of
signification,as the correlateof subjectiveindividuation, is abandonedin
favour of that of the machinic plane of consistency,which allows of the
conjunctionof meaningand matter by bringing into play abstractmachines
that are evermore de-territorializedand more closelyin contactwith material
fluxesofall kinds. Significationproceededlrom the movementofconsciousg . A s r h e I r r c i i a n s s et hv c. w h i t e m e n h r v e l o s t r h e i r s o u l . I n o t h e r u o r d s . t h e i r s o u l ( r h e i r s 1 s t e r r t
o f r e d u n d a n c y )h a s b e e nd e - t e r r i t o r i a l i z e dh, a s g o n e e l s e w h e r eh, a s m a d e a p a c t r v i t h t h e d e v i l ' s
machinism.
t o . D i x o u r s ,F r g z r aE, d i t i o n s K l i n c k s i e c k ,r g 7 r .

ct6 lnstitutional Psychotherapy

nessreturnins Lrponitself,lrom a turning inrvardsto represenrati'eimages,
irom a rr.rpt'r'ew'ith machinic co'junctions. A colrecti'eapparatusof utterancelnali remain meaninglessto particular people.and yet drau,its meaning
(its histcricalor poeticmeaning,for instance)frorn a direct creativeconiuncn o r rr ' i r h ' i r e i l u x e sO
. n t h e o r h e rh a n d .t h e i n t e r r s.co n i e n to f m e a n i n gi n ;
i t A r p t l c u lp r e s rl ) r e dL r yi n d i r . i d u a t e u
( lt t e r a l t c e
m a r h a v en o m a c h i n i cr i e a n ing at all, may be the occasionlor no conjunctionof real fluxes,may remain
o u t ( , f i l r . r ' e a c ho f a n y p o s s i b l ee x p e r i m e n t a r i o nI .n s h o r r , r h e e q u a t i o r .
' s i ! r i f i e c i+
s i g n i f i - r= s i g . i f i c a r i o n ' a r i s ef sr o n rr h ei n d i ' i d u a t i o r o f p h a n t a sies anri lrom subjugatedgroups, whereasthe equation'coilectivero..e of
utterance= machiiiic sense/'nonsense'
arisesfrom group phanrasv,and the
group as strlr.ject.
vv'ithor-rt
beingable to go into it in the necessarv
depth,rvemusrnow return
io this idea of .'tconjunctionbetrveensemioticmachinesand the machinesof
real flux ivliich characterizenon-signifyingcollectir,,ities.
we may start by
noting that the semioticffuxesarejust as .eal as the material ones,anclin a
sensethe nratelial fluxesarejust as senrioticas the serrioticmachines,This
brings us to the idea of a semioticof intensities,a semioticof the continuous.
and r"e rnr.rstdistinguish (again, as does Hjelmslev) between the nonseraioticallr'lormed rnatter-meanitig
or 'purport'll and semioticallyformecl
tubstancet.
I{'one qives them no common basis apart lrom the dichotomv
b e t i v e e nl e p r e s e n t a t i o an n d p r o d u c t i o n s, e m i o t i cm a c h i n i s m sa n d m a t e r i a l
machinisrns rvill inevitably relate, the former to an idealist concept of
represenrarion,
anclthe latter to a reil\ringrealistconceptof production.The
sameabstractr-r-rachir-rism
must surelybe able to subsumeboth and enableus
to pass fronr one fo the other. That abstract rnachinism in some sense
'precedes'
tlre actualiziltionof the diasrar'matic conjunciionsbetvreenthe
systemsof signsand ti-resystemsoimaterial intensities.
The e'idencecan'ot be denied:in the sciences,
the arts,politicaleconomy
and so on, the sig'machines work, at least in part,directl2on the materi;l
fluxes,'vhare'er nrav be the'ideological'systemof the remaining part that
firncti'ns in the sphereofrepresentation.shorr ofappealing to some divine
a g e n c v* s u c ha s f ) e r r i d a ' sm y t h o i t h e ' c o m p l i c i t yo f o r i g i n s ' e s t a b l i s h eadt
the Ievelof a signifr,ingarche-writing- there is no meansolconceiving the
corjunction of rvords and things otl-rerthan by resorting ro a svstem ol
machinic kevsthat 'cross'the variousdomainswe are considering.
l t The a'scrlioticallv lormed semantic or phonic reaiity is rendered by Hjelmslev's French
translarors either as matihe (matter) or as sens(sense,meaning). As c)swald Ducrot poinrs out. it is
u n d o r rb t e d l v t b e i a c t o f c o m i i r gl o u s v i a t h e E n g l i s hw o r d ' p u r p o r r ' r h a t e x p l ai n s t h i s b o l d s e m a n
r ic
oscillation benvssn 5sn5s and matter, The mind can wander olr in manv direcrions from
this
berinring. and. as my readers will notice, I have given mine a free range! ct'. Esais linguistiques
dt
Itjclmriet'. p. tl3. ancl l)ittionuire ngtclopidiqut les scintesdt langagr,p.3o.

Towards a Micro_politics of Desire

97
It seemsro me that that conjunctiontakespraceon the basis
of the most
de-territorializedmachinic mutations, p.ecislly those that
operate at the
Ie'el of the most abstractmachines,Those abstract
machinesseem,in some
h'av, ro constitutethe spearheadof machinic
de-territorialization,prior to
semioticlormationsand material fluxes.u'.rike other
contents,they'arenot
i'scribed in the disorder of the structuresof represencation;
they'are not
dependenton the spario-temporalspecifications
ofthe socialphuni".y; th.y
constitutein themselvesthe locusof whateverconsistency
is possible'inthe
inquirf inro rruth; abstract machinescrystalrizede-territoriarization;
thev
are its primal intensity.In the sensein which the idea
of co'sistencyis usedin
the axioms olmathematics, we may speakof machinic
cons.isteniy;
and u,g
can say that, whatever the material or serniotic
basis ror their present
existence,they came into being on a plane ofrnachinic
consistency.
it is no
longera questionof affirming, in lormal terms,
that a sysremls non-contra_
dictory,butofexpressingthe consistency
and irreversibilityofthe de-territori a l i z e dm a c h i n i c m u r a r i o n st a k i n g p l a c e u p o n t h e
m a c h i n i cp h y l u m . T h e
structuresof representation,in as much as they remarn
cut orrrrom the rear
agenciesof productiorr,oblige the semiotic machines
to keep ha'ing to
'rectifr"
their poinr of view to 6t in w,ithcheeconomyof materiaiflu*.r;
ih.y
ha'e to organizethemselvesl'ith a view to a consistency
and an axiomaticor
e x p e r i m e ' t a l d e r e r m i n a b i l i t y I. t i s q u i t e a d i f r e r e n t
matter fbr inrensive
machines,which have no need to resort to such intermediarl
systems.They
arein direct contactwith their own systemof encoding
and ue.ificatio".T;;;
are themselvestheir own truth. They art.iculate
thlir logical .onsi.tency
simply through their or.vnexistence.This is no longer
a matrer of individual
existence.
but rather olindi'iduated existentbeingi, rocarizedin rererence
to
systemsof spatio-temporarspecifications,and in reration
to observatio.
svstems.Such a mode of existenceimplies that a
subject and an object be
constitutedexternaily to the processof de-territoriarizationhe'ce the
relationshipof relativede-territorializationof time and
space.with abstract
machinismone startsoffrrom the viewpointof c.re-territoiialization
in action,
in other w'ordsreai processes
ofre-mourding,mutation, brackhoresand soon.
Machinesare rhus individuatedonry inihe
sphereof representation;
their
exlstence
alongsidethe sr.'stems
of referentialtl.roughtis trans-individualand
trans-tenrporal'A machine is no more than
a machinic link, arbitrar'y
rendereddiscernibleon a rree or a rhizome
of machinic i_pfi."tior. ani
particularmachineis arr'aysrimitedon the
one hand by what iid.pu.r.r, uni
on the orher by rvhat condemnsit to obsolescence.
with natural encoding territoriarizednon-semiotic
chains were set in
operation without producing any loss of signification;
for instance, the
de-territorialization
ofthe processofgeneticrelroduction, its ,creativit;,,,
its
'innovation',
took prace without seif-aurareness,
rvithoui
sig.nin."iir,.
"ny

98

Institutional PsychotherapY

referencepoint, in short, without any instance of conscience.The same

economv,the same avoidanceof any significantflight, rvould be lound with
as that of insects,rvhich developsb,v
semioticsof such social c<-rmmunication
with
no possibiliwof being transposed,
way of a highly specializedencoding,
and without introducingany autonomouslevelof the signifier.The establishment of a non-signifyingsemiotic rnachinism,bound up with the various
processesof de-territorialization,technological,scientific,artistic, revolutionary etc., also results in desroying modes of rePresentationthat are
humanistic, personological,familialist, patriotic and so on' It implies a
continual broadening out of desiring production towards the totality of
a-signifyingsemiotics,and their machinic surplus-values'But this doesnot
thereforemeana return to the mvth of a'natural'semiotic.On the contrary',it
means getting bevond semioticscentring upon human beingsand rrtoving
irreversiblytorvardssemioticsinvolving technologicaland theoreticalsystems that are ever more differentiated,more artificial, and further from
'fhe
problem is no longer one of trying to straddle deprimitive values.
territorializedfluxes,but of getting aheadof them. There is an ever greater
flux of desires,and a more marked de-territorializationof thoseSuxes The
capacityof human societiesto escapefrom alienationsterritorializedin the
ego,the frerson,the family, the race. the exploitationof labour,distinctionso1'
sex and so on dependson a conjunctionbetweenthe semioticsofconsciousnessand thoseof de-telritorializingmachinisms.Human beingsmake love
'extra-human'elements- things,animals,images,
with signsand alI kinds of
looks, machines and so on - that the sexual functioning of Primates,for
instance,had never encoded.With its shift to non-signiffing semiotics,the
subjectivity of the utterance comes to be invested in an organlessbodv
connected to a niuitiplicity of desiring intensities.That organlessbod;"
oscillatesbetweenan anti-productionthat tendsto becomere-territorialized
in residuaisignifications,and a serniotichyper'productionthat opensitselfto
fresh machinic connections.The collective apparatus of utterance can thus
become thi: centre of immanence for new desiring connections, the point
by the cosmic
where, beyond humanity, there is production and jouissance
fluxesthat run through machinismsof every kind. Let me stressagain that
this in no sensemeansthat what is utteredhas to return to the'pre-signif,ving'
mechanismsof natural encoding,or that it is condemnedto bejust a single
cog in an alienating social machinery. I am certainlv not going to join the
vrailing chorus of humanists who lament the loss of real values,and the
'orientalized'
essentialu'ickednessofindustria! societies,e'r'rl2s thev have
their rhythms to suit the styleof the'new culture'.

Towards a Micro-Politicsof Desire oo

Semiotics with n articulations
Signiffing semioticsestablishsystemsof mediationwhich represent,neutralrzeand renderimpotent all the intensivemukiplicities,by subjectingrhem to
the_form,/substance
couple.They give shapeto the substancesof expression
and the substancesof the content; they impose on intensiverealities the
regimeof the strataof double articulatio'.12That regimeshould,in my view,
be consideredas a specificsemiotic
optionol the processes
ofde-territorialization. we are lacedwith a choice:either a systemrvith ,, articulationsin rvhich
the various .on-signifyingsemioticscombinetheir efrortswithout any one of
them over-encodingthe others; or a sysremofdouble articulation.doubre
formalization.which over-encodes
all other systems.If the latter, the semio_
tics beconresubjectto what one nlay call the signiiyingillusion.and all seem
t o d e p e n do n l i n g u i s t i c s . rE3v e n t h e s e m i o t i cs t r a t ad e s c r i b e db v H i e l m s l e v
still belong to the particular mode of formalizarion proper tc.rsignifying
semiotics.I think, however, that the tripre division he suggesrsshould bi
preserved,as long as it can be transposedto someexrent:
form 3onsideredindependentlyof substance(which Hjelmsrevneverenvisages).This would relateto whar I call hereabstract
machines;
substance,
or more preciselythe form/substancecouple.To the oarticular
caseolthe semiologiesof signification,this wourd correspondu, u mode
of
actualizatiorr,manifestation,possession
of the cle-territorlalizing
potencyof
abstractnrachinesrvhenthey becomesubjectro the s)'stemofstratification
of
expressionand contentbasedon the principleofdouble articulation;
malter,consideredindependentl;of its signifyingsernioticformation (rhisis
not envisagedbv Hjelmslev,either,lor in his way of thinking it would implv
leavingrhesemiotic sphere).It would rhenstandas a corresponde
nt to *,hat i
call the machinicmeaning.In the contextof a semioticof the machinicsense,
rather than of the signification,of material intensitiesrather than of the
signifieras a categoryin itself,ofcollectiveapparatusofutterancerather than
an individuation of the subjectbasedon the primacy or the statemenr,what
would vanish would be the very distinctionbetweencontentand exDression.
This may be the way in which we are to undersrandHjelmslev,s(or his
translators'?)
intuition in idenrifyingmarter and meaning.
In the specificcaseof double articurarionsignifvingmachines,we are in
a
t r . c i c h r i s r i a n I I e r z ' s a n a l y s i s ,w i r h r e f e r e n c et o H j e l n r s l e v ' sp r o l e g o m i n e s . . , L e r
us rerurn ro
chapter r 3 o[the Prolegomines,
r'here it savs rhat rorm is a pure nerwork o[rc]ationships, thar marter
t h c r ec h r i s t c n e d" s e n s e " ) r e p r c s e n t st h e i n i t i a l l y a m o r p h o u se n r i r y i n w h i c h l o r m i s i n s c r i t r e , l
and
"manilested"a
. n d t h a r t h e s u b s t a n c ei s w h a r a p p e a r sw h e n o n e p r o j c c r sl o r m o n t o m a r t e r , , a s
a ner
t h a ti s s t r e r c h e do u t p r o j e c t si r s s h a d o wo n t o a n u n b r o k e ns u r f a c e "( p . gr T h i s m c r a p h o r
s e e m sr o
).
m ea \ / e r yc l e a r o n e : t h e " u n b r o k e n s u r f a c e "i s t h e m a r t e r , t h e " o u t s t r e t c h e dn e t ' , i s t h e f o r m ,
and
thr"shadorv"olthenerisrhesubstance.'(Metz,Langageetcin[ma,Larousse,rgTr.)
I q . C f . B e n v 6 n i s t e , S e m i o t i tc9a6, 9 , r . z , M o u t o n .

roo

Institutional Psychotherapy

scnsesub!ecterlto a controlledCe-territorialization.
The anti-productionof
significationand sLrbjectivation
partiall,vre-territorializesthe semioticprocess.Ii is not a questionofradical neutralization,ho*'ever:the semioticsof
significationalsoimplv settingon loot a de-territorialization
of consciousness
rvl'richr,vill continue to plav a leading role in the most adr.'anced,most
artificial,moslnodern, most scientificmachinic conjunctions-In the caseof
senriotics'with n number of articulations)one
a politicri o1'nr:-rn-signifying
wiil tirus preservea certain partiai use lor signifyingsemiologies.
Thel'will
rhen function in :pite of their re-territorializingeffectsof significationand
'fhey
u'ill rnerely lose their function of over-encodingthe
subjecti'.'ation.
systemsof'sernioticproduction that used to lall under the despoti.sm
of the
signifier.
as I am trying to, twci semiotic politics, I u,ant to
In di.stirreuisiring.
deterrnineurrder what conditionscertain semioticareas- in sciences,arts,
revolution, sexuality, etc. - could be removed from the control of the
could get beyondthe svstemofrepresentationas
Cominant representations,
such -- since that s),stemseparatesdesiringproduction from production ibr
exchange,and alierratesit as prevailingproductionrelationsdemand.
Lct us look asain at the three tvpesofsynthesiswe usedin order to identifv
and articulateproduction and representation:
what is set going by the processesof
r " At the lev,:l of connecliue
,)nlheses,
uon-scmioticencodingis tl-reabstractmachines- that is, machinicprocesses
'doing'
'thinking',
and
indepenCent of dichotomies between
between
fepresentationaud production.The machinicsnsemust here be understood
in vectorialterms:the senseindicatesa mode of polyvocalconnectionamong
the machinic fluxes.Multiplicities of intensitycannotbe lumped togetheror
territorializedaiong any one systemofsignification.Each producesits own
and this production of meaning,which does not contain the
spercifications,
processitself but developsas it were alongsideit, trans"'ersalli'.
outside all
systemsof representation,is noneother than what we havedesignatedas the
organlessi:ody.
r. With disjunctite
slnthr.rrr,the formalism of representationis establishedin
pride of place. Particular signil\,ingsubstancestake over the functioningof
a[.rstract
machines;they take contlol. organizeand 'discipline'the connective
Though in their conscious,destructiveaspectthev are machinesof
svntheses.
de-territorialization,they are at the sametime structuresof re-territorialization becauseofthe systemofdouble articulationthat producestheir e{Iectsof
one movesback
significationand subjectivation.With disjunctivesyntheses,
and forth benr,eenthe dead end of iconic impotentization and a deten-itorializing diagrammatization capable of being reconnectedto rhe
synthesis.
connecti\re

Torvardsa Micro-poliricsof Desire ror

3. At this point of departure, the conjunctiue
s,ntheses
define the srarus of
subjecti'ation' In the case of signifving se*iologi.s,
subjectivarion is
individuated, split up by the signifie., re,ide.ed
impotent; the subject becomessimply somerhingalongsidethe.signilyingsubstances.
All poivuocity
of u tteranceis alienatedto a,ranscenden"talized;
subject of the utterance.
In the case of non-signifying semiotics, there
is a collectiverorce o'
urterancethat effectsthe split inherent i'ajl systems
of representation.
The
sen.re
of the abstracr machines connectsup with rhe
sensi
of the collective
apparar.sesofutterance,^bothprior ro and beyond
the exclusivedisjunctive
signi6cationsolthe signifyingsemiorogies
with their errectof individu"tino
subjecti'ity. Thus the collectiveappararuses
of utrerance^"d ;-J;.;i;;
effecta co'junction betu'eenthe abstiact machines
on the one hand, a'd on
the orher the machinesthar are a*ua.lized in
the fluxes of reality and the
lluxes ol'a-signifling signs. The specific effect
of the annihilati"g J;t e r r i r o r i a l i z a t i oonf t h e i n s t a n c eo f c o n s c i e n c e
b e c o m e sl n s o m es e n s ei s o iated from subjectivizing significations. A
machine of intensive deterrrroria,izationis a gatewayfor the flux of signs,
and gi'es them new power
bv liberating them from representationa.r
cleadenclsancl i'volving th.- i,,
processes
of diagramrnaticconjunction.To transposeit inro
rhe te;irr;io;y
used b' Andr6 Martinet. the problem can be
stated like this: the .,.ron..n?.
srructuredon the level ofthe first articulationand
the phonemesstructurei
on the le'el ofthe secondarticurationare not in
essencediirbrent.Both are
g e n e r a t e d*,o m o u t o f t h e s a m ec o n l i n u u m ,b y
a , d u a l c o n s t r a i n t ,b, y h ; ; ; ;
to respondto tr'o diferenr typesof fbrmarization.
This givesus ,-o',,"f., o?
production:things signified,which are classified,
paradigmatized,rendered
im.po.tent;
and signifiers,which are policedund ,y.,tugmurrzed.
But, outside
thisdual efrectof significarion,a new rypeofa-signifying
oiag.ammaiicrin; oi
escapehas becomepossible.
A direct semioticrelationshipcan norvbe estabiished
betweenrhematter of
expression
and the abs*act machines.Henceforth,the traditionai
distincrion
betweenrhe expressionor signifierand the conrent
or u,hatis signifiedtends
to sto,pbeing obviously necessary.The expressio
n of a macltinic
sri* no* ,ut ..
r n ep l a c eo t
( r) the svstemofsignificationbasedon the
duality ofsignifierancrsignified;
( a ) r h e s y s r e mo l r e p r e s e n r a t i o bn a s e do n
t h e i u a l i t y o f s u b s r a n i ea n d
.

IOrm:

(q) the articulationof both thesesystemsas

a mode of subjectivationthat
prevents anv direct contact with the referencethat is, the intensive
m u l t i p l i c r t vo f m a t e r i a li n t e n s i t i e s .
In this respecc,it may be held that rhe s'srem
ofrelerential thinking has
never been basically anything but one flnal
barrier, one last d.rpirut.

r02

Institutional Psychotherapv

atlempt to pre\ierlt the evcr more threatening prolileration of abstract

t
n r a c l r i n efsr o r n' h t c e n t r a ln r a c h i n i cs t e m . '
T'he two dua.lities- signified/signifier.substancelform- were subjectivatrng; the expressiveduality - matter/absfact machine - implies a
doesnot
coilectiveuttering force. But, let me repeat,that de-subjectivation
'human' semiotics.Even supposingthar the despotisrnof
thereb-vinvalidate
the signifier were to be abolished,signifying languageswould still have a
crucial role to piav as the means of containing the processesof retelritorialization,and io sive the machinic spearheadsofde-territorializawe shouldeive freerein to
tion ti'reirlLrllfbrce.That is *'hy in schizo-ar-ralysis
in order
representations
and paranoid-fascistrepresentations,
Oedipalizir-rg
the better to countei their tendencyto block the fluxes.and to start things
going again in a kind of machinicforward rush.
'Ihe
perspectii'eI am suggestingimpliesa fundamentalreversalof perspecof semioticcomponents,
tive. \Ve are abandoningthe lbrmal classifications
and instezrdare primarilv consideringthe kind of working organizationsthe-v
constitute-*in view of specificsystemsof de-territorializingfluxes.The sign
of de-territorializationat work withiu the
machinestakepart in the processes
central n'rachinicphylum. Indeed there is no further need to establisha
clear-cut distincticn between- say - a diagrammatizationof signs and a
'natural' fluxes,
or
technologicalinnovation, or a scientific mutation ol
'artificial' machines.\f ith both 'nature' and signs,we are concernedwith the
sanletype of machinismand the samesemioticof material intensities.
Oppositions between nature and culture, signs and things, spirit and
matter, theory and technologv,etc. appeared to make senseonly in the
contex'rol'asemiologv6fsignificationthat setout to classify,control,turn into
'contents'it extracted
clearly defined and specifiedobjects all the various
l u x e so f
s f d e - t e r r i t o r i a l i z ef d
s l i n t e n s i t y , l 5T h e e f f e c t o
liorn thr multiplicirieo
electrons,fiuxes of signs,of experimentalcombinations.of iogic machines
antl so on combine to give a rvide expansionto de-territorializingconjunctions, and set the abstractmachineslree from the despotismofthe strata of
signifiers.
1 4 . i U e t z b c l i c v r s t h a t C h o m s k , vt o s o m e e x t e n t g e t s b e y o n d H j e l m s l e r ' ' so p p o s i t i o nb e t u ' e e n
'fhc
Chomskians refer to a'logic machine' prior to ihe text. and capabie of
rxpression anci conlent,
generaringit. which would overcome thc opposirion between the lorm ofthe content and the form of
'I
thc expression. his is .something that merits more proibund consideration.But it seemsto me, at
firsr sighr, rhat such a logic rrachine is still restricted to the semioticsofsigni{ication, and uould nct
rrake it possible to e{lict the passageto the absract machines which are to be lound prior, not
merely to the wri rten word, but to all machinic manifestationsof every kind, The same mav be said
o{'thc system o[abstract objects suggestedby S. K. Saumjan's'Generative Applicative Model''
r 5 . I t m a y b e a n i n t u i t i o n o f t h i s s o r t t h a t l e a d sC h r i s r i a n M e t z t o s u g g e s ta n a n a l y s i so f t h e
rclevant fcatures ol the material ofexpression, or to oppose the categoru ofexprcssiorr to that oi
s i e n i f i c a t i o nB
, u t i n m l , v i e w h e i s w r o n g , w h e n s r u d v i n gt h e c i n e m a ,t o c o n t i n u et o t a l k a b o u t t h e
narfer oftlre rign1fitr,rather than to use Hjelmslev's phrase, the matter ofrrpr:srion.

Tou'ards a Micro-Politics of Desire

r03

N'{achinicconjuncrionswill find their meaning,wil be ,guided,

in their
de-territorializing intensitv as much from a flux oi'erecrons as
from a flux of
equationsor axioms. I must stressthat this does not mean a return
to the
'origins':
on the contrary, the establishmentof a colrectiveuttering fiorce
implies that we conrinueto passby way of the narrow ,defires,of
the si-gnifier
and the'schizzes'ofindividuated subjectivation.But this time,
it i, ul pure
means- rvithoutany transcendenta.l
dimension,without anv paralysingelrect
on the historicalprocesses
ofde-territorialization.
It may be usefulhere to give a few examplesof abstractmachines.
Thesg
may be iogical machines set i' motion by the sciences,
or formulae of
transversality'unleashed'in the courseofhistory,as for instance
in the sphere
of war machines or religion machines.But machinism of this
kind' atsr.r
proliferates ar the microscopic level. consider whar we call
ar the La Borde
clinic the grid: in all the various lorms and stagesof its existence,
it involves
the emergenceofan abstractmachine.The problem was to connect
the fiuxes
of time, of Iabour,of functions,of mone;'und .o on, on a rather
differentmodc
from the one normally prevailingin other establishments
of the samekind which can be characterizedby the existenceofa relatively
staticorganogram
of function. The work time-iabie - written down on paper - the
cirJurati"onof
lunctions inscribed in a semiologyofgestures,the modification
ofhierarchical
catesoriesinscribedin ajuridical and socialsemiology,all
theseare specific
manilestationsof the sameabstractmachinismthat conveys
a certain (locar,
and not very important) mutation in productionreiations.
And it may have
been becausethis sort ofmachinism had begun to appear at La Borde
ihat so
much fuss was made about our experimentsthere.r6Another
example of
abstract machines is the love rituals that characterize
different p..iodr.
Courtiy love,saysRendNelly, inrroduceda radicallynew organization
of the
relationshipsbetweenmen and women in the context of the
feudal caste
system. The semiotic of romantic love, in its turn, independent
of the
significationsand sentimentsit expresses,
seemsto me to correspondmore to
settingup a certain kind of relationshipto childhood, to making
use of the
intensitiesand territorialitiesof childhood in what I have
caleJ,childhood
blocks',as opposedto consciouschildhoodmemories.(That this
is a casenot
merely of significative themes but of setting in motion a
non_signifying
intensive machine is demonstrated by' the Jecisive part played
[y .u.fr
childhoodblocksin rhe music of a composerlike Schumann.t
The Power Relationships

within the Utterance

The functionof languageis not sorelyto serveas a channei

of transmissionfor
fluxesof inlormation. Languagesare not mere supports
to communication
r6, Cf. the special number ofthe revtew Rcchcrches
devotedto La Borde, no. z r, April r g76.

rcl4 Institutional Psychotherap,v

amorlg individuals;they are inseparablefrom the socialand politicai context
in whir:h the-vare used.What could be calledarbitrarv in the rclationshipof
signification(the relationshipbetneenthe signifierand the thing signified)is
o n l v a p a r t i c u l a rr n a n i f e s t a t i o9nf t h e a r b i i r a r i n e s os f p o w e r .T h e d g m i n a n t
l a n g u a q ei s a l w a v s t h e l a n g u a g eo f t h e d o m i n a n t c l a s s :t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t
makes use of signifying semiotics,but, essentiallv,u'hat makes it tick is a
non-signi{vingsemiotics.Linguists like Oswald Ducrot are thereloreled to
'devaiuethe facilemetaphor that assimilateslanguagesand codes,and so to
qualif1,.or evenaltogetherden;-the definitionof languageas an instrumentof
c o m r n u n i c a t i o n ' .P
l r r o m i s i n go, r d e r i n g a, d v i s i n ge. i v i n ga n a s s u r a n c ep,r a i s ing, taking seriousiyor lightlv, snerringand so on areas much micro-political
as thel, are linguisticactivities.To a greateror lesserextentthc;-are all what
A u s t i n c a l l s ' i l l o c u t i o n a r t ' a c t i o n sE' .v e r l 's t a t e m e nct a n t h u s b e r e i a t e dt o a
p a r t i c u l r r s t r a t i i l c a t i o n0 1 - L l t t e r a n caer,r a n g e db \ r a n k . c a s t e 'c l a s s T h e r e fore an1,questioningof the statusof the collectiveapparatusesol urterance
would impl,v a re{ttsal to tailor the mode of utterance to the statements
Lrttered.and a considerationofthe stratificationsolutteranceas b1'no means
l e c l u c i h i es r m p i y t o l i n e u i s t i cs u h s t a n c e sB. e , v o n dt h e m e s s a q ees x p l i c i t l v
the analvsisw'or:ldhave to con'siderthe
and specificalll'r.rttered,
expre,ssed
n o n - s i g n i f v i n gs e n r i o t i cd i m e n s i o n sr - r n d e r l y i n gi l,l u m i n a t i n g a n d d e c o u sructing ever)-discourse.Its aim rvouldnot be so much to trv to expressit all
in terms of the text and the signifier. but to understand the true power
of desire.
situatrono{ lbrces,in other words the machinicengagements
'lhc
establishmentLrsessignif,vingsemiotics,but never losesitself comto imagine that it could fall victim
plctely in them, and it would be a n.ristake
to its ou'n signifling methods and ideologies.The ruling classesfoster the
developrnentof signifying behaviour. Indeed' this constitutesone basis of
t h ei r p o r v e rb, u t i t i s o n l y a m a t t e ro f u s i n gs e m i o t i ci n s t r u m e n t os 1 ' t h iksi n d t o
'rlruq' pecrpleu'ho are alreadysubjugatedin other \4'avs-at the leveloftheir
relationshipsof desireproduction and of econotnicproduction
There are two methods of approaching an ideologicalsemiotic: one,
starting lrom a position of real poln'er(the power of the State. or of a
traditional political movement),tries to determinewhat dominant significat i o n s s h o u l d b e p r o d u c e da s a t e c h n i q u eo f s e n l i o t i ci m p o t e n t i z a t i o ntlh e
orl)er,starting on the contrarl'lrom ideology,or e\rena critique ofideologl',
tnes to corne to terms with reality. In the latter case there is a kind of
simulation of real intensities,one is lulled by fine statementsand grandiose
reformistpartiesand othersu'ho seekto
programmesin the tamiliar st1'lec-rf
The politicsof sienificationconsists
porver,
real
bases
olpolitical
the
c<.liceal
ir: developing a rvhole s.vstemof confusing the machinic sense,and in
r 7. Osrvald Ducrot, Dtre el nepasdire,Hermann, t972, P. 2+.

Towards a Micro-Politicsof Desire r05

producinga multitude of archaismsin the subjectiveterritorialitiesthat reify
utterance and split it between the two lormalized strata of content and
ion.
express
The result of this is to block the semioticpraxis of the masses- of all the
various oppresseddesiring minorities - and to prevent their entering into
direct contact with material or semiotic fluxes,preventingtheir becoming
connectedup to the de-territorializinglinesof the difl'erentsortsof machinism
and so threateningthe balance of establishedpower, Referentialthought,
understanding,interpretation,the transcendentalizing
oldistinct, concrete
objects,and dogmatism all proceedfrom the same method of subjectir.rg
peopleto the dominant statementsand significations.Every statementhas to
be understoodwithin the pre-established
area of exclusivebi-polar values,
and everv semioticsequencehas to leavethe realnr of its original machinic
lormation to enter the systemsof o{ficial expressionof significationand
fepresen
tation.II
In mv view it would be wrong to acceptan oppositionbetweenscienceand
ideolog,v,
especiallyin the obsessional
mode of the Althusserians,who make
that opposition massive,schematicand without any real relation to ll{arx.
We can expect no salvation frorn any all-embracing scienceor (totally
mythical) scientificit,vof conceptsor theoriesconsideredindependentlyof
their technico-experimentalcontext and their situation in history. The
relationshipbetweenscienceand politics cannot be one ofdependence.Of
courseboth proceedlrorn sirnilar kinds of collectiveeconomicand social
engagements,but their semiotic productionsare directed along radically
differentlines.
Scientificstatements(in the context ofcurrent scientificproducrionrelations) are a kind of natural product of the field of logico-mathematical
formalism.r,u'hereas
politicalstatements(takingpoliticsin the usualsense,not
in that of the micro-politicsof desire) are systematicallyreduced to match
personological,lamilial and humanist statements.In the circumsrances,
it is rather over-generousto allow science- in fac!, a certain mythology of
science- the exclusiveprivilegeof being the sourceof ruth, the solecentre
ofall de-territorializations.
And it would drag 3oliticsevendeeperinto a dead
end to try to reduce it to a sheer ideological exerciseif it should reluse to
submit to the injunctionsof the epistemologists.
We must thereforedeny that
thereis any radical epistemologicalbreak betweena conceptualfield ofthe
purely scientific,and an ideologythat is purely illusory and mystificatory.
The moment the discourseof sciencebecomesa discoursenDozlscience(and
the dividing line is impossibleto deterniinefor certain rvhenit comesto the
r8.'fhe axioms of referenlial thought have been analysed by Gilles Deleuze (in Dffirence el
ripy'tition) around, four themes: identit] in the concept, timilitude in rhe perception, anulogl in the
judgement and rygotioninthe position ofexistencc.

r06

lnstitutional PsychotheraPY

voices that actuall,v speak lor science,so onl,v the epistemologistscan

contraclictus) it autotnaticallv makes itself an ideologi'. that is to sav a
. o n v e r s e l yw, h a t s e t o u t a s i d e o l o g i ecsa t ra c q u i r e
s e n r i o t i co l s i g n i 6 c a t i o n C
and havedecisivesocial.
can be'scientificallV'manipulated
real effbctiveness,
In short, I believeit to be quite absurd
economicand material conseqlencesto rr),to baserevolutionarypoliticson scieltce.The sciencecited by scientific
Marxists doesnot exist; it is an imasinarv sciencethat operatesonly in the
or] the other hand, I do not think it absurd to
rvritings of episremoloeists.
on semioticand analvticalexercisesthat have
politics
base a revolutionarv
broken with the clominantsemiologr';in other words, on wa-vsof using the
spokenand written word. pictures,gestures,groups and so on, that would
clirectak:ng verv diflerentlinesthe relationshipbenveenthe flux ofsigns and
all the de-territorializedfluxes.In point offact. it is bv getting caught up in
that the massesfaii to reaiizethe true
the ner of interpretativesemio.logies
spr.ingsof rheir power - that is their real control over industrial.technologic'
al, scientillc,economicand socialsemiotics-and becomeboggeddou'n in the
phantasiesof the dominant realitr',and in the modesof subjectilation anc
repressionofdesire imposedupon them by the bourgeoisie
Horvevermuch scientificsemioticsmay be contaminatedby the dogmasof
religionand philosophv,thev remain as a wtole basedon a machinicpolitics
In thc last resort, what matters is always the engagementsof signs and of
complexes.whereasfinal obiectives,interpretations
technico-experimental
place But here
and graphic representationsalways end by taking secor-rd
practice
scientific
guaralltee
of
no
protection,
automatic
is
1o
agaip, there
cag often
againstinterpretativeaberrations,a1d, as rve hale seen,scientrsrs
tirtlowsuch aberrationsrvith nothing short ofmystical lervour.
To conclude nry remarks about the apparatusesof utierance, a few
commentsabout the semioticsof art. In this sphere,things are lessclear-cut;
'take-overbv the signifier'ofthework. the artist, the inspiration'the
rhereis a
. e t i t s e e m st h a t , o v e ra l l , o n e n ) a vs a v t h a t m o d e r na r t i s
t a l e n t ,t h c g e n i u s Y
evolvinc towards a politics of non-significance:representationaland maof encodedexPress.vstems
chinicenqagernents aregaitringoverrepresentative
sion. Bur if we look more closelyat the varioussortsof collectiveengagement,
we irave to qualifi' that statement.Tl-restereotypedimage we have of, sa-v,a
painter, is of an individual more than usuallv open to sociallife. We picture
hirn rvith his lriendsin the cal6,for instance.He will probably be a member of
a school, and will almost certainlv be more politically involved than a
composerwould. Indeed we tend to seethe composeras a solitarycharacter,
wrestlingin a dizzying singlecombat with a musicalcreationthat he cannot
\'et it is noteworthythat, rvitl-rfew exceptions.composershave
quite captr-rre.
tended torvardsa delenceof traditionalvalues,tou'ardsreligion,even
aln'a-vs
committowardssocialreaction.Indeed in their o\{;nway the)'areextremel,v

Towards a Micro-Politics of Desire

r07

ted people.One cannotthereforecling to one'sfirst impressionof the painter

If we
as a man in societyand the composeras representingtranscendence.
examinethe natureof the collectivestructuresto which the two belong,rather
than their individual attitudes,the paradoxis confirmed.
\'{usicalproductionoriginatesin extremelylargecollectivities;it implies a
major divisionof labour, and is supportedby a long musicaltradition. Every
composerrvritesasan extensionof what hasgonebefore,anci,though he may
introduceexcitingnew ideas,he hasstill to dependon a wholetechnologyand
a whole professionalworld for his work to be presented.Composersbelong to
a kind of castewirh its own highly elaboraterituals,a castewhosepositionin
the hierarchyolreactionarypowersis not negligibie.(Painters,ofcourse,are
connectednot so much r+'ithchepowersofthe aristocracyas thoseolfinance.)
One has here to contrastthe abstractmachinesof music (perhapsthe most
non-signifyingand de-territorializingof alll) with the whole musical caste
its educationaltraditions, its ru.lesfor correct
svstem- its conservatories,
composition,its stresson the impresarioand so on. It becomesclearthat the
collectivity of musical production is so organized as to hamper and delay the
lorceof de-territorializationinherent in music as such,We may think hereof
the history of the church's relationshipwith music, which goesback to the
origin of polyphony. For instance, the church always tried to block the
machinicexpansionof instrumentalmusic,and to allow only singing.It tried
to set dogmatic limits to composition,and to impose particular stylesand
forms.On the other hand, one of what Christian Metz calls the'outstanding
be the lact that
featuresolthe subject-matterof pictorialexpression'may r'r,ell
the painter, contrary to all appearances, is far more solitary than the
composer.ls He is lar lessaflectedby tradition and the schools.Musical forms
overwhelmthe listener,capturing, directing,conlrolling. A canvas,on the
other hand, remainsat a distancefrom the art-lover- who can pick it up, put
it down, glance at it, pass it by aitogether.The painter, the work and the
spectatorremain in a sensefundamentallyseparatefrom one another.In the
final analysis,the collectivelorcesconstitutedby the plasticarts are far less
'human' and more machinic than are thoseof music,which evenin their most
modern forms are infused with a politics of signifying redundancy. Though
painting is nranifestlymore territorializedthan music, the painter himselfis
far more de-teritorialized than the composer.

rg. C[ Alberto Nloravia's novel, La noia.

Towards a New Vocabularv

Machine and Structure'

The distinction I am proposing betweenmachine and structure is based

solely on the way we use the words; we may considerthat we are merely
dealingwith a 'written device'of the kind one has to invent for dealingwith a
mathematicalproblem.or with an axiom that ma1'haveto be reconsidered
at
a particular stageof development,or againwith the kind of machinewe shall
be talking about here.
I want thereforeto make it clearthat I am putting into parentheses
the lact
that, in realitv,a machineis inseparablefrom its structuralarticulationsand,
conversely,that each contingentslructure is dorninated(and this is what I
want to demonstrate)by a systemof machines,or at the very leastby one logic
machine.It seemsto me vital to start by establishingthe distinctionin order
to make it easierto identif,vthe peculiarpositionsof subjectivityin relationto
eventsand to history.2
We may say of structurethat it positionsits elementsby way of a systemof
references
that rel.tes eachone to the others,in such a wav that it can itselfbe
relatedas an elementto other structures.
The agent of action, whose definition here does not extend beyond this
principle of reciprocal determination, is included in the structure. The
structuralprocessofde-totalized totalizationenclosesthe subject,and will

r . l n i t i a l l y i n t e n d e dl o r t h e F r e u d i a n S c h o o li n P a r i s i n r 9 6 9 , a n d p u b l s h e d i n C h a n g en, o . t e
( S e u i l )r, 9 7r .
r. To adopt the categoriessuggestedby Gilles Deleuze,structure, in the sensein which I am using
it here, would relate to the generality characterized by a posirion oiexchange or substitution of
p a r t i c u l a r i t i c sw
, h e r e a s t h e m a c h i n e w o u l d r e l a t e t o t h e o r d e r o f r e p e t i t i o n ' a s b e h a v i o u ra n d
'1D
viewpoint rel a t ive to a singul ari ty tha t can not be changedor replaccd' fJ,ire.nu
et ripitition,Presses
Universitaires de France, I 969, p. 7). Of Deleuze's three minimum conditions determining
strucrurein general, I shall retain only the first two:
(r)Theremustbeatleasttwohetcrogeneousseries,oneofwhichisdefinedasthesignifierandrhe
orheras the signi6ed.
(c) Each of these series is made up of terms that exist oni1, through their relationship with one
another.
His third condition, 'tx,o heterogeneousseriesconvergingupon a paradoxical element that actsso
as to di{lerentiare them', relates,on thc contrary, exclusivelyto the order of the machine (Logiquedu
s a r oM
, inuit, t969,p.63).

I 12 f'owards a Nerv Vocabularv

n o t l e rs o a s l o n ga si t i s i n a p o s r t i o nt o r e c u p e r a t iet w i t h i n a n o t h e rs t r u c t u r a l
determinatior.r.
'fhe
n r a c h i n eo, n t h eo l h e r h a n d ,r e m a i n se s s e n t i a l lrve m o t e{ i o m t h e a g e n t
'fhe
-fe
o{ action.
sLrbjectis alrval,ssomer,r,here
else. mporaiizationpenetrates
the machineon all sidesand can be related to it onl,vzrfterthe lashionof an
evenrT
, h e e m e r g c n c oe l ' t h ci n a c h i n en r a r k sa d a t e ,a c h a n g ec, l i f l e r e nf tr o m a
structLlralrepresentatiolr.
'fhe
history of technologvr.sdated bv the existencear each srageol a
i ) a r t i c u i a rt 1 ' p eo f ' n i a c h i n et ih e h i s t o r \o f t h e s c j e n c eiss n o w r e a c h i n ga p o i n t ,
i n a l l i t s b r a n c h e sw
, h e r e e v c r vs c i e n t i 6 ct h e o r ) ' c a nb e t a k e na s a m a c h i n e
rzrthel than a strlicture, rl'hich relates it to the order of ideoiogr'.Everv
(almostto the point
machineis the negation.the destro;-erby ir-rcorporation
o f e x c r e t i o n ) o, f ' t h e r n a c h i n ei t r e p l a c e sA. n d i t i s p o t e n t i a l l ,ivn a s i m i l a r
r e l a t i o n s h i pt o t h e m a c h i n et h a t w i l l t a k ei t s p l a c e .
Yesterdav'smachine, today's and tomorrow's, are not reiated in their
structur?11
determinations:onlv by a processof historicalanal;-srs,by referr:ncetr) a signifling chain extrinsic to the machine, bv what u,e mrght call
historical structur;rlism, can we gain anv overail grasp of the ei}'ectsof
c o n t i n u i t v .r e l r o - a c t i o na n d i n t e l l i n k i n st h a t i t i s c a p a b l eo f ' r e p r e s e n t i n g .
For the rnachrne,the subjectof history is elsewhere,in the structure. In
I z r c tt,h e s u b j e c o
t f t h e s t r u c t u r ec. o n s i d e r eidn i t s r e l a t i o n s h i o
p f a l i e n a t i o nt o
;1s,vstemtrf cle-totalizedtotalizarion.shouid rather be seenin relation ro a
of-'beingan ego'- the egoherebeingin contrastwrth the sub.ject
;;'henorrrcnon
o i ' t h e t r n c o n s c i o uass i t c o r r e s p o n d st o t h e p r i n c i p l es t a t e d b y L a c a n : a
s i q n i 6 e r - r e n r e s e ni t sl b r a n o t h e rs i g n i f i e rT. h e u n c o n s c i o ussu b j e c ta s s u c h
will bc on the same side as the machrne,or better perhaps.alongside
the
r n a c h r r r cT.h e r ei s n o b r e a ki n t h em a c h i n ei t s e l f :t h e b r e a c hi s o n e i t h e r s i d eo f
lt.

The indir.'idual'srelationto the machinehas beendescribedbv sociologists

fi>llowingFriedn-rannas one of lundamentalalienatjon,This is undoubtedl,v
true ii one considersthe individual as a structure for totalization of the
irnasirarl'. But the dialecticof the mastercraftsmanand the apprenticeJrhe
r.,ldpicrurcsof the clillelenttradesflourishingin dillerenrpartsof the countrv,
in the faceof modern mechanizedindustry
ail this has becomemeaningl.ess
tlrat rcqLliresics skilled rvorkersto start lrom scratchagain ru'irhevel'\'new
technoltrgical
advance. But doesnot this startingliom scratchmark precisely
that essentiaibreakthroughthat characterizes
the unconscioussubject?
Initiation into a trade and becomingacceptedas a skilledrvorkerno longer
takes piace by wav of institutions,or at least not those envisagedin such
s t a t e m e n t sa s ' t h e s k i . l lh a s p r e c e d e n coev e r t h e m a c h i n e ' ,W i t h i n d u s t r i a l
capitalism. the spasrnodicevolution of machirrerykeepscr-rttingacrossthe
c x i s t i n qh i e r a r ,l r v o f s k i l l s .

Machine and Structure I l3

In this sense,the worker'salienationto the machineexcludes him lrom any
kind of structuralequilibrium, and puts him in a positionwhere he is as close
as possibleto a radical svstemof realignment,rve might sav of castrarion,
wherehe losesall tranquillity, all 'sellconfirming'security,all thejustificarionofa'senseofbelonging'to a skilledtrade.Suchprolessionalbodiesasstill
exist,like doctors,pharmacists,or lawyers,aresirnplysurvivalsfrom the days
of pre-capitalistproductionrelations.
This changeis ofcourseintolerable;instirutionalproductionthereforesets
out to concealwhat is happening by setting up systemsof equivalents,of
imitations.Their ideologicalbasis is to be lound not solely in fascist-type,
paternalisticslogansabout work, the lamily and patriotism,but alsowithin
thevariousversionsofsocialism (evenincluding the most apparentlyliberal
ones,like the Cuban), w,ith their oppressivemyth of the model worker, and
theirexaltationof the machinewhosecult has much the samefunctionas that
o l t h e h e r oi n a n t i q u i t y .
As cornparedwith the work done by machines,the work of human beingsis
nothrng.This working at 'nothing', in the specialsensein w,hichpeopledo it
todav,r,vhichtends more and more to be merely a responseto a machinepressinga red or black button to producean effectprogrammedsomewhere
else- human work, in other words, is only the residuethat has not yet been
integratedinto the w'orkof the machine.
Operations performed by workers, techniciansand scientistswill be
absorbed,incorporated into the workings of tomorrow's machine; to do
somethingover and over no longeroffersthe securityofritual. It is no longer
possibleto identif. the repetition
of human actior.Is('the noble task of the
sower')with the repetitionof the natural cycleas the loundationolthe moral
order.Repetitionno longer estabiishesa man as someonewho can do that
particularjob.Human work today is merelya residualsub-wholeof the work
of the machine. Tfris residual human activity is no more than a partial
procedurethat accompaniesthe central procedureproducedby the order of
themachine.The machinehasnow cometo theheartofdesire,and thisresidual
humanwork representsno more than the point of the machine's imprint
'a'3).
onthe imaginary world of the individual (cf. Lacan's functionof the
Everv new discovery in the sphereof scientificresearch,lor examplemovesacrossthe structuralfieid oftheorv like a w,armachine,upsettingand
rearranging
everythingso as to changeit radically.Even the researcheris at
themercyof this process.His discoveriesextendlar beyondhimself,bringing
in their train u,holenew branchesofresearchers,and totally redesigningthe
treeof scientificand technologicalimplications.Even when a discoveryis
calledby its author's name, the result,far lrom 'personalizing'him, tends to
3. SeeGlossar.v,Ohjelpetil

'a'.

lr,r

r 14 Towards a New Vocabulary

be to turn his proper name into a cornmonnoun! The questionis whetherthis
eflacing of the individual is something that will spread to other forms of
productionas weli.
Though it is true that this unconscioussubjectivity,as a split which is
overcome in a signifying chain, is being transferred away lrom individuals
and human groups towards the world of machines,it still remainsjust as
un-representable
at the specificallymachinic level. It is a signilierdetached
from the unconsciousstructural chain that will acI as representallue
to represent
the machine.
The essenceof the machine is preciselythis lunction ofdetaching a signi6er
as a reprsentative.as a'di{Ierentiator', as a causal break, di{ferent in kind
lrom the structurally establishedorder of things. It is this operation that
binds the macirineboth to the desiringsubjectand to its statusas the basisof r
the various structurai orders correspondingto it. The machine,as a reperition I
of the particuiar, is a mode - perhapsindeed the onlv possiblemode - of i
univocal repfesentationof the various forms of subjectivitvin the order ofi
generalityon the individual or the collectiveplane.
i
In trying to see things the other wav round, startinglrom the general, one i
would be deluding oneselfwith the idea that it is possibl"to baseoneselfon
sonlestructural spacethat existedbeforethe breakthroughby the machine.
This'pure', 'basic'signifvingchain,a kind oflost Eden ofdesire,the'goodold
days' before mechanization,rnight then be seen as a meta-language,an
absoluterelerencepoint that one could alwaysproducein placeofany chance
eventor specificindication.
'Ihis
would lead to wronglv locating the truth of the break, the truth of the
subject,on the level of representation,information, communication,social
codesand ever)'otherlorm ofstructural determination.
T'hevoice, asspeechmachine,is the basisand determinantolthe structural
order oi language,and not the other way round. The individual, in his
bodiliness,acceptsthe consequencesofthe interaction ofsignifying chains of
all kincis which cut across and tear him apart. Th human being is caught
where the machine and the structure meet.
Human groups have no such projection screen available to them. The
rnodes of interpretation and indication open to them are successiveand
contradictory, approximative and meraphorical, and are based upon di{Iererit structural orders, for instance on myths or exchanges. Every change
produced by the inrusion of a machine phenomenon will thus be accom.
panied in them with the estabiishment of what one may call a system of
anti-production, the representativemode specificto structure.
I need hardly say that anti-production belongs to the order of the
machine:the keynotehere is its characteristicofbeing a subjectivechange,
which is the distinctive trait of ever),order of production. What w'e need

tr)A^a/J2_

'1'aiY J. 'ti ?^tn"t

Machine and Structure I I5

thereloreis a meansof finding our way r.r,ithoutmoving as though by magic
from one plane to another.We must, lor instance,relateto the samesystemof
productionboth what goeson in the worid ofindustry, on the shopfloor or in
the manager'sofFce,and what is happeningin scientihcresearch,and indeed
in the world of literatureand evenof dreams,
Anti-production rvill be, among other things, what has been described
'production relations'.Anti-production will tend to e{Iecta
under the term
in the directionof
kind ofre-tilting of the balanceofphantasy,not necessarily
inertia and conservatism,sinceit can alsolead to generalizingwithin a given
socialarea a new dominant mode of production,accumulation,circulation
and distribution rela!ions,or ofany other superstructuralmanifestationofa
nervt,vpeof economicmachine.Its mode of imaginarvexpressionis then that
of the transitionalphantasv.
Let us then look at the other end ofthe chain,the levelofdream production.
We may identify anti-productionwith working out the manifestcontentof a
dream,in contrastto the latent productionslinked with the impulsemachine
'a', described Lacan the root
that constitutepart objects.The objetpetit
by
as
of desire,the umbilicus of the dream, also breaksinto the structural equilibrium of the individual like someinfernalmachine.The subjectfinds it is being
petit
rejectedbv itself. In proportion with the changewrought by objet-maehine
'a'in the structural field ofrepresentation,successive
formsofothernesstake
their places for it, each fashioned to fit a particular stage of the process.
Individual phantasizingcorrespondsto this mode ofstructural signposting
by meansofa specificlanguagelinked with the ever-repeated
urgingsofthe
'machinations' desire.
of
petit 'a', irreducible, unable to be
The existence of this objet-machine
absorbedinto the relerences
ofthe structure,this 'selfforitself' that relatesto
theelementsof the structureonly by meansof splittingand metonymy,means
that the representationof oneselfby meansof the'stencils'of languageleads
'otherness'.The
to a deadend, to a breakingpoint, and the needfor a renewed
objectofdesire de-centresthe individual outside himself,on the boundariesof
the other; it represents the impossibility of any complete refuge of the self
insideoneself,but equally the impossibilityof a radicalpassageto the other.
Indi','idualphantasvrepresents
this impossiblemergingof di{Ierentlevels;it is
thisthat makesit diflerentlrom group phantasizing,for a group has no such
'hitchingposts'
of desire on its surfiace,no such remindersof the order ol
specifictruths as the body's erogenouszones,and their capacitvlor touching
andbeingtouchedby other people.
Group phantasy superimposesthe dillerent levels,changesthem round,
substitutes
one for another.It can onlv turn round and round upon itself.This
circularmovementleadsit to mark out certainareasasdeadends,as banned,
asimpassable
vacuoles,a whole no-man'sland of meaning.Caught up within

r r6

Towards a New Vocabulary

currency,but a
the group, one phantasyreflectsanotheriike interchangeable
currencyrvith no recognizablestandard.no ground ofconsistencvwherebyit
can be related.even partiallv, to anything other than a topologyofthe most
purely generalkind. The group-as astructure-phantasizeseventsby means
of a perpetual and non-responsiblecoming and going between the general
and the particular. A leader,a scapegoat,a schism,a threateningphantasy
from another group - anv of theseis equatedwith the group subjectivity.
Each e'rentor crisiscan be replacedby anothereventor crisis,inauguratinga
further sequencethat bears,in turn, the imprint of equivalenceand identity.
Today's truth can be related to yesterday's,for it is always possibleto re-write
history. The experienceof psychoanal,vsis,
the starting up of the psychoanalvtic machine.makesit clear that it is impossiblelor the desiringsubjectto
preservi such a s-vstemof homologt,and re-writing: the only function of the
translerencein this case is to reveal the repetition that is taking place, to
operatelike a machine- that is in a u'av that is the preciseoppositeof a group
eflect.
The group's instinctualsystem,becauseit is unableto be linked up to the
petit 'a' returning to the surfaceof the phantasy body
desiring rnachine - objets
- is doomed to multiply its phantasy identifications.Each of these is
structuredin itself,but is still equivocalin its relationshipto the others,The
fact that they lack the diflerentiating factor Gilles Deleuze talks of dooms
thenr to a perpetuai process of merging into one another. Any change is
precluded, and can be seen only between
structural levels. Essentially, no
break is any iongeraccepted.That the structureshaveno specificidentifying
rnarksmeansthat the;' become'translatable'into one another,thus developing a kind of indefinite logical continuum that is peculiarly satisfvingto
obsessionals.The identification of the similar and the discoveryof diflerence
at group level function according to a second-degreephantasy logic. It is, for
example, the phantasy representationof the otlter group that will act as the
locatingmachine.In a sense,it is an excessof logicthat leadsit to an impasse.
This relationshipolthe structuressetsgoing a mad machine,madder than
the maddestoflunatics, the tangentialrepresentationofa sado-masochistic
logic in which everythingis equivalentto everythingelse,in which truth is
always somethingapart" Political responsibilityis king, and the order of the
generalis radically cut offfrom the order of the ethical.The ultimate end of
group phantasy is death - ultimate death, destruction in its own right, the
radical abolition of any real identifving marks, a state of things in which not
merely has the probiem oftruth disappeared forever but has never existed
evenas a problem.
This group structure representsthe subject for another structure as the
basis of a subjectivitv that is clogged up, opaque, turned into the ego.
Whereas,for the individual, it was the object of unconsciousdesire that

Machine and Structure I r7

functioned as a system of change or machine, in a group it is either the
sub-wholesthat happen to come into being temporarilvwithin the group or
anothergroup that will assumethat function.This areaolstructural equivalencewill thus have the lundamentalfunction of concealingor abolishingthe
entry ofany particular object representedeitheron the screenofthe human
subjectby unconsciousdesire,or on the more generalscreenofunconscious
signifying chains bv the change eflectedby the closeds),sremof machines.
The structuralorder olthe group, olconsciousness,
ofcommunication,is thus
surroundedon all sidesby rhesesystemsof machineswhjch it will never be
able to control, either by grasping the objets
petit'a'as rhe unconsciousdesire
machine, or the phenomena of breaking apart related to other types of
machines.The essenceof the machine,as a factor lor breakingapart, as the
a-topicalfoundationolthat order ofthe general,is that one cannotultimately
distinguishthe unconscioussubjectofdesire from rhe order ofthe machine
itself. on one side or other of all structural determi*ations.the subiect of
economics,of history and of scienceall encounter that sameobjetpetit ,a;as the
lour.rdationof desire.
An exampleofa structurefunctioningassubjectlor anotherstructureis the
lact that the black community in the United Sratesrepresentsan identification imposed by rhe white order. To rhe modernistconsciousness
this is a
confused,absurd, meaninglessstateof things. Art unconsciousproblematic
challengesthe rejectionof a more radical 'otherness'that would be combined
with. say, a rejectionof economic'otherness'.The assassination
of Kennedy
was an event that 'represented'the impossibilityof registeringthe economic
and socialothernessof the Third World, as wirnessedby the failure of the
Alliancefor Progress,the endeavourto destroyVietnam and so on. One can
only note here the points of intersectionand continuity betrveenthe economy
ofdesireand that ofpolitics.
At a particular poinr in histor,vdesirebecomesfocalizedin the totality of
structures;I suggestthat for this u'e usc the generalterm ,machine':it could
bea new weapon,a new production technique,a ne1!'setofreligiousdogmas,
or such major new discoveriesas the Indies,relativity,or the moon. To cope
with this, a structural anri-production developsuntil it reachesits own
saturation point, while the revolutionary breakthrough also develops,in
counterpointto this, another discontirruousarea of anti-production that
tendsto re-absorbthe inrolerablesubjectivebreach,all ofwhich meansthat ir
persistsin eludir.rgthe antecedentorder. We may say of revolution,of the
revolutionaryperiod, that this is rvhenthe machinerepresenrssocialsubjectivity lor the s!ructure - as opposedto the phaseofoppressionand stagnarion,
when the superstructuresare imposed as impossible representationsof
machineefrects.The common denominatorof w,ritingsof this kind in history
wouldbe the openingup ola pure signifvingspacewhere the machinewould

I i8

Towards a New Vocabulary

l'epresentthe subject lor another machine. But one can no longer then
continueto say ofhistory, as the site ofthe unconscious,that it is'structured
like a ianguage'exceptin that there is no possiblewritten lorm ofsuch a
language.
It is, in fact, impossibletc systematizethe real discourseof history, the
circurnstance that causesa particular phase or a particular signifier to be
representedby a particular event or social group, by the emergenceofan
individual or a discovery,or whatever. in this sense'we must consider,d
priori, that the primitive stagesolhistory are u'here trurh is primarily to be
sought; historv does not advancein a continuousmovement:its structural
phenomenadevelop accordingto their own peculiar sequences,
expressing
and indicating signifying rensionsrhar remain unconsciousup to the point
where they breakthrough.That point marksa recognizable
breakin rhe rhree
dimensions of exclusion, perseveranceand threat. Historical archaisn-rs
expressa reinlorcing rather than a weakening ofthe structural eflect.
That And16Malraux could say that the twenriethcenturyis the centuryof
nationalism,in contrast to the nineteenth,which was that of internationalism, was becauseinternationalism.lacking a structural expressionthat
matched the economicand social machineriesat work within it, withdrew
into nationalism,and then further, into regionalismand the varioussortsof
particularism that are developingroday, even within the supposedlyinternational communistmovement.
The problem olrevolutionary organizationis the problem ofsetting up an
institutional machine whose distinctive leatures would be a theory and
practice that ensuredits not having to depend on the various socialstructures
- above all the State strucrure, which appears to be the keystone of the
dominant production relations, even though it no longer correspondsto the
meansolproduction. What entrapsand deceivesus is thar it looks today as
though nothing can be articulated outside rhat structure. The revolutionary
socialist intention to seizecontrol of political power in the State,which it sees
as the instrumental basisof classdomination, and the institutional guarantee
cf pri..rateownership of the meansof production, has been caught injust that
trap. It has itself becomea trap in its turn, for that intention, though meaning
so much in terms ofsocial consciousness,
no longer correspondsto the reality
of economic or social forces.The institutionalization of 'world markets' and
the prospect ofcreating super-Statesincreasesthe allure ofthe rap; so does
the modern reformist programme of achieving an ever-greater 'popular'
control ofthe economic and social sub-wholes.The subjectiveconsistencyof
society,as it operatesat every level ofthe economy,society,culture and so on,
is invisible today, and the institutions that express it are equivocal in the
extreme. This was evident during the revolution of lvlay I 968 in France,when
the nearest approximation to a proper organization of the struggle rvas the

Machine and Structure r r 9

hesitant, late and violently opposed experiment of lorming actior) commlttees.
The revolutionarv programme, as the machine for institutional subversion, should demonstrateproper subjectivepotential and, at every stageof
the struggle, should make sure that it is lortified against any attempt to
'structuralize'
that potential.
But no such permanentgraspofmachine effectsupon the structurescould
really'be achievedon the basisofonly one itheoreticalpractice'.It presupposes the development of a specific analytical praxis at every level of
organizationof the sruggle.
Such a prospectwould in turn make it possibleto locatethe responsibility
of those who are in any waf in a position genuinely to utter theoretical
discourseat the point at which it imprints the classstruggleat the very centre
ofunconsciousdesire.

The Planeof Consistency r2l

The Plane of Consistencyr

The term is an approximation. As will becomeclear from what I am going to

say. first, it canrrotbe just a single plane, and second,we have to make a
distinctionbetweenmathematicalconsistencyand the machinic consistency
\{e are concernedrvith here. For the moment, let us note that:
- Mathematical consistencyimplies a set of axioms that are noncontradictorv.2
* Machinic consistencyavoids such an implication in that it does not
resort tc a dualist systemof appulngmultiplicities to a semioticwhole so much
as embracingthe totality" It doesnot thereforehave anything to'fear' lrom
purely logicalconradictions.
- Moreover, the basis of axiomatic consistencyis the lact that ultimately
there is a consistencyin machinic propositions.
* The plane of consistencvindicates that the machinic phylum is a
canlinuun.The unity ofany process,the unity ofhistory, residesnot in the fact
of a shared time encompassingand traversingeverything,but in the fact of
that coltinuum of the machinic phylum, which itself results from the
conjunction of the totality of de-territorialization processes.
Whenever a muitiplicity unfolds,the plane of consistencyis brought into
operation.The machinic phylum is in time and space.Plane,here, has the
senseof the phylum, the continuous.Nothing is small enoughto escapethe
net of machinic propositions and intensities.The strata of slbjectiaityare set
againstthe pianeofthe agencyofcollectiveutterance,the subjectagainstthe
agent. The plane of machinic consistencyprovides the answer to Russell's
paradox. There really is a totality of all the totalities.But it is not a logical
totalitv; it is a machinic one. The problem of the continuousis resolvedat
the level of the machinic phylum befiorebeing stated in mathematical
terms.

r . lrtrotesmadc in April r 97:,

a, Robert Blanchd shows that a closer analysis distinguishes betwcen contradiction and consistency,bctween dillerent notions ofconsistency,and so on (L'Axiomatique,PressesUniversitaires
de France, l 955, p. 48). This is something that needsexploring.

Matlrematics and Physics, Technological Innovation

and the Military Machine
- At first theseappear to be quite disparatefieldswhich will only coincide
1npresent-daydevelopmentof the economicand national military complex.
- But in fact, ,.r'ehave to start lrom the premise that, from the veryfrst, they
mergeinto one another,and that what makesthe web of history - that is of
historvup until the scientificrevolutions- is the machinic phylum.
The machinic phylum takeso{f with the military machine,then with the
technologicalinno'"'ationslinked with the concentrationof the means of
productionin primitive statemachines(cities,empires,etc.),and finally with
the scientificrevolutions.But the machinic power of desirewas, alwaysand
everl,where,already there. To take an example,the invention of bronze in
southernSiberia led to the territorializationoftribes whoseficrmofproduction was settledand agrarian.The collectivedesireenergyrapidly changedits
objectand turned thosesocietiesinto a military proto-machine.Nomadism
introducedlurther benefits,both in material termsand in termsofdesire.(In
some cases,the extensivestock-breedingof the nomad machine caused
settledagriculture to disappearaltogether.)3In'a few decades',there had
comeinto being an encodedsurplus-valuewhich led to the abandonmentof
settledhomesteads.
Wealth 'suddenlystoppedbeingthe desireto own a piece
ofsround'. Peoplehad acquired'a new conceptionoforvnership,with land as
somethingmerely to be used.basedon mouable
goods,
flocks,horses,chariots,
personaleilects, bows and arrows, rvhat was gained by pillage' and 'an
expanded,,vealth'.
In all this, machinic power was making and unmaking primitive territorialitv and nomadism,the primitive stateand its divisions.We thereforefind
the plane ofconsistencyboth as the impossiblegoal ofthe history ofscience
and tire preliminar,vto the 'start' of histor.v.
It is important to consider the position of the plane ol consistencyin
relationto the semioticmachine,to the independence
acquiredby the voiceas
theinstrument lor opening up the field of the spokenword. Why should the
battle-cry,the mating call, leave the sphere of the functional, of caste
behaviour,to becomeopen to a transvaluationof encoding?Words have a
di{Ierentuse:they carrv lurther - or perhapsthey go nowhere.Thev produce
new connections.After all, it is surely in this figurative shift of the oral
semioticmachinesthat the essence
of the phenomenonof religionlies?
In any case,it is in the frameworkof the city machines,with the primitive
stateas anti-productionof the military proto-machine,that we can identify
oneof the two basic strata of the territorializationof the plane of machinic
consistencl'-the other one in fact being brought into action bv the military
3.

'Prdsence
des Scvthes', Crilique,December t97 t.

t_

r2,2 Towards a New Vocabulary

prc)to-m?1chine.
The questionof whether the militarl' proto-machinecomes
beloreor after the primitive stateis secondary.There is, in eflect,a link, an
encodedsurplus-r,alue
betweenfhe two. Either the primiti'e statefinds itself
having to fall back on the military proto-machinein the name of antiproduction, or, conversely,it has itselfachieveda technologicaltake-oll,a
systemof innovation (in the sphereof written language,the use of metals,
ditTerentiatingthe kind of work to be done bv people lrom that done bv
anirnalsetc.), and is in turn enrichingthe military machineand moving it a
notch higher in rhe processofde-territorialization.
The fiuxesare tidied away, controlledand over-encodedbv meansolthe
writing rnachine.In this case,despotismis svnonymousn,ith forcine e'erything into a bi-univocalmould, fitting the whole of the gcodson the sherves
into a new whole of graphic symbols,
The military proto-machineconsumedits goods- lor instance,when a
pharaohdied, his concubines,his servantsand evenhis slavesrverekilled. In
the feudal system,on the orher hand, which set out to preservethe labour
force of its serls and the fighting force of irs vassals,the primitive state
restrictedand dela,vedsuch consumption.The sign was retained.Semiotic
Cedipaiism, for the writing machine, consistsin an exrernal taking hold
of objects and subjectsin their completeness.writing and reckoning are not
the same as consuming, though to name a thing may be a way of eating
it.
'fhe
positionof writing is thus one of anti-production.A written text, itself
impotent,is ne'erthelessa sign olpower. This is the sourceof the dichotomy
between mathematics anci phvsics. Pythagoras was concerned with the
'essential'
numbers that lay beyond ,real, powers. In an article in the
EnclclopaediaUniuersalis,'Phvsique et marhimatiques,, Jean N{arc Levytr eblond presentsa critique of the two forms in which peoplehave soughtio
make mathematics'thelanguage'ofphysics.Mathematicsis viewedeitheras
the languageof nature, rvhich man must learn (the attirude of Galireoand
Einstein),or as the languageof man in which natural phenomenahave to be
expressed(the attitude ofHeisenberg). But there are also all the possible
positions betweenthese two, all of which, in one way or another, tend to
consolidatethe dualism between empiricism and formalism - opposing
nature tc) man, experienceto theorizing, concrete to abstact, scientific
phenomenato scientificlaws and so on.
Ler^,r-Leb.lond
maintains that there are two possibleusesfor mathematics
in tl're sciences.It may have a relationship of apptication
- as with chemistrv, biology, the sciencesof the Earth and all other spheresin which
ihcre is numerical calculationand a manipulation of quantities.or it mav
'Thus
have a relationshipof conrrf
tutionorproducrian,
mathematicsis interiorizec by physics', and their conceprsare indissolublvinterlinked (derived

The PlaneolConsistency r2Z

speedand the electro-magneticfield, for instance).This sort of relationship is
peculiar to physics (which Bachelard failed to realize when he spoke of a
'progressivemathematicization'of all the sciences).Nevertheless,the separation between mathematics and physics remains. They are different in
kind.
Unlike mathematics,physicsis difficult to expressin axioms.One can give
severalcoherent mathematicalexpressionsof the same law or concept in
physics(mathematicalpolymorphism). In physicsthe principlesand lau's
aremore mobile, more transcursive, less hierarchized. Conversely, a single
mathematicalstructure can govern a number of diilerent domains without
'a
'underlying
unity'- what Poincar6called hiddenharmony
therebeingany
is
identit,vof the object of
(mathematical
plurivalence).
It
the
in things'
physicsthat can only be known approximately, that eludes absolute definition. Thus there is a contradictory two-way movement going on: mathematicsis tendingto evergreaterautonom,v,but alsotendingto greaterinterwith mathematicalphysics.
dependence
1n lgl,y-Leblond's view one must abandon the idea of any hierarchy
'it
amongthe sciencesin lavour of mathematicizing them: is by the nature of
its relationshipto mathematics,and by the constitutiverole mathematics
- major or minor - can be seen
piays,that any branch of the natural sciences
asbelongingto the sphereofphysics'. In other words, physicsis constituted
by two processesof de-territorialization (a semiotic processand a material
process).An object in physics becomesconsistentonly in so far as it can
authenticalll'be treated mathematically.It no longer has a relationshipof
application with the sign, but one of production. The way the particle
correspondswith the sign no longer refers to the disjunctive synthesesofa
systemof representation, but to an experimental connective system and a
theoreticalconjunctive system, in which the surplus-valuesof encodingor of
setsof axioms are formed
lVe thus end up with a physics-mathematics complex that links the
of a systemof signs with the de-territorializationof a
de-territorialization
clusterof phenomenain physics.Levy-Leblondwould seem,at this second,
'material'
level, to be niaintaining the primacy of the existenceof the real. The
traditionalsplit benveenmathematicsand the natural sciences(including
physics)sanctioned by experimentationawould appear to be, for him,
insuperable.
We may note the twolold connection between the de-territorialized phe- that is, to the most
4. The wav in which he rgjects any subjection of physia to mathematia
srratum - by quoting the example ofastro-physics,which becameestablishedon
de.rerritorialized
theprevicusi.vmathematicized ground ofastronomy, is unconvincing N'lathematicalastronomy
wil never a'non-experimental'sciene: it was physics already on the way to being turned into
mathematics,

tz+ Towards a New VocabularY

t6an
nornenorlof the ph'sicist and the mathematicssign machine.5Rather
the
on
inertia
oJ
a
nnmtnl
with
e
dealing
we
ar
sa)r
Iet
us
ollject,
an
tutf i"g about
of
de-terriat a given point in the contingen! Process
part oi themachinism
science'
to.iaiirutior"t.In the last resort,mathematicsis also an experimental
rest as
at
past
still
in
the
were
rvhich
nomena
phe
rliotic
with
se
nts
I t experirne
future more
grup'hi. symbolsirre srill ar rest, but might perhapsbe so in the
ot.. tn. iashionofrhe figuresofspeechand syntacticalrulesolinformation-

The Plane of Consistency r25

the partial machinisms harmonize on a single plane of consistency- not

susceptibleto being totalizedinto one axiomatic, not susceptibleto representation,bu.tinfinitelyde-totalized,de-territorialized,
de-axiomatized.And
this plane of consistencythat mathematicslinks up *,ith the other
::,L:j:.""
Machinic consistencvevadesthe alternativeof mathematicalconsistency
defined by Gridel's theorem. First of all, to it a machinic connecrionmay be
t h e o r y m a c h i n e s . . f l r e o b j e c t o | p h , v s i c s i s p a r t i c l e s ( t h e r e a r e s o m e h y p o t h e . actual and non-actual: machinic time encodescontradiction, the observerof
light,
the contradiction has his own machinic time, the connecrionis governed by
tical ones,known as tachyons,that are supposedto travel fasterthan
the general relativity of conjunctions.Secondly,nothing escapesit. Machines
not being subjectto the usuallimitationsof causalitv
going back in time, ar-icl
cannot stand emptiness, lack, negation, an exclusively referential stratum.
E'er1.such moment of inertia is connectedrvith a particttand i.-,ilbrmatio'r).6
of
With machinesthe questionis one of connectionor non-connection,
without
l a r s i t u a t i o no i t h e r n a c h i n i s m . J L i sa rs t h e m a c h i n i s r lo. )f e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n
ofmathetlre
expansion
lor
conditions
conditions,without any need to render an account to any third party. It is
the
produced
has
physics
theoretical
m a t i 0 a l p h y s i c s , s o t l r e i n f i c r m a t i o n - t h e o r y m a c h i n i s m w i l l p r o b a b l v c o m e t o from that that the surplus-valueofencodingoriginates.The situationis like
'pure' mathematics'We
that of the bumble-bee which, by being there, became part of the genetic
more eflecton the developmentof
huve ,-,-to..'ar-rd
being
phvsics
and
mathematics
both
chain
of
of the orchid. The specific event passesdirectly into the chain of
in
terms
think
to
may thereforecome
lrom thinkFar
machine.
encoding
until another machinic event links up with a different temporalizatheoretic-experimental
the
al()ngside
sense
in sonte
on the
tion, a dillerent conjunction.
ins that \4'ecan radically axiomatizephysics,we shall find ourselves
.oirr.u.y having ro r.elativizethe axior'atizationof mathematics.
It is the principle of the excludea ,flira term rhat is itself excluded here.
jossible a*iomatizationsas you like for
Ultimately, the only referenceis the plane of consistency,but no limit or lack
The computer.willproduce as manv
Mathematicsis not concerned
must be written into it. The plane of consistencyis the organlessbody of all
e'er' th;ry - o poiitir. {loodof axiomatics.T
as
much a machineas physicsis,
It
is
axiomatic svstems;it is not the total being of the machinism, but the
harmony.
rvitir'pureuniversalsemictic
it is somewhat
impossibilityof concludingor totalizingmachinicexpansion.
exceprthat, front the poiilt of view of technicalmachinisni,
claim that
Behind the opposition betweenwhat is as yer hardly axiomatizedat ali
lirrrher behind. Godel'stheoremnarked the condemtrationof any
less
(thatis, physics)and what is very much so (that is, mathematics)one can see
axiomaticsis omnipotent.BUndoubtedlV,therelore,therecan be lessand
theoutline of the order of what is'radically non-axiomatizable'- machinic
possibilityof concludingthe variousattemPtsat mathematicaxiomatization
multiplicity. Axiomatics was related to the structure of representation,
on the contrary,what I want to shorvis that all
with any super-axiomatics.
whereasthe flux ofaxiomatization relaresto machinic production. This being
r h e s p l i t l l e t l e e n p h y s i c sa n d t h e o l h c r s c i e n c e sl h a t u s e
so,can one maintain that physics has a specialrelationship with the order of
5 . I a l s e ' h a v e r c s e r v a t i o t r sa b o u t
other
n u n , e r i c a lo r d e r . I r i s p o s s i b l et h a t t h e r e a r e o t h e r m a t h e m a t i c s ,o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n s '
existingrealit)'?
machinisms.
The object of the mathematics/physicscomplexusis not physical; it relates
rvith
working
compuler
a
what
would
in
scierce-fiction:
6. Here we conle to a lirtle probiem
neitherto the nature of the physical nor to the physical as nature. Machinism
r a c l r ro n s o c l i k r l C f . I ? r c h c , . h tn: .o 7 . D e c c m b e rr 9 7 o . p 6 ; 5 '
R u y e r ' sp o s i t i o ni n c o n d e m n i n ga p r i o r it h e p o s s i b i l i t v
links together physics and mathematics, working equally well with symbols
7 . I n m y v i e r v t h c r e i s n o j u s t i f i c a r i o nf o r
t h a t c i ' b e r n e t i c sm a y e x p a n d i n f i n i t e l y .
andparticles.The particleis definedby a chainofsymbols;physicisrs'invent,
..
o n a f i n i t en u m b e r
B . . . G o d e l ' sr h e o r e mn : r k e s c l e a r t h a t w h a t e v e rt h e o r vt h e r em a y b e b a s e d
particlesthat have not existed in 'nature'. Nature as existing prior to the
unprovable
some
of axion)s r,; make it possible to construct arithmetic, one can alr*ays discover
'(\Varusfel,
that
machineno longer exists. The machine produces a di{Ierent nature, and in
Dicttonntire dts '\'lathimatiques'
P 2!t7] If one appends
proposirion in it . . .
theory' but otre in
a
rve
have
different
then
axiom,
order
supplementary
to do so it definesand manipulates it r.r,ithsymbols (the diagrammatic
as
a
proposirion
paradoxical
number o1-axioms
w h i c h r h e r e i s a { u r r h e r u n p r o v a b l ep r o p o s i t i o n .I t i s i m p o s s i b l e ' t h a ta f i n i t e
process).
l a t h e m a t i c si n w h i c h n o t m e r e l l ' w o u l dt h e p r i n c i p l eo f
s h o u i d b e e n o u g ht o e s t a b l i s ha n y u n i v e r s a m
Epistemologicalprimacy thereforelies neither with mathematics nor with
in which any
the excluded third (P cannot at rhe same time be true and false) bc true' but
physics.
It may perhapslie with art. It is arguablethat the mostde-terrirorialnon'de monstrable
proposirion might be eillur rse or faise. Some theorems will a)wa.vsre main
ized
level
relates to the sign. It is true that the mathematical sign has
(
i
b
i
d
.
1
.
I
h
c
m
'
t
o
b e c a u s cr h e r ei s n . r a n s w e r

I26

Towards a Nerv Vocabulary

sometimes let its hand be lorced bv the de-territorializationof experimental

pirvsics.but, equallv.it is the de-teritorializationof the sign that governsthe
entire process,generalizingits eflects,and projecting the surplus value of
encoding onto the totalitv of encodedareas. Even in caseswhere phvsics
appearsto be controlling !he movement,the machinic points remain on the
side of the mathematicsmachine. And this wili be even more the case as
physicsbecornesmore involvedin information-theorvtechnologvand abandons anv claim to signiii anvthing at all apart fi'om irs own machinic
connectrons.
Yet thoseparticlesreallv do exist- somewhereelse,in other galaxiesfor
example.Thev are not inventedor arrangedby mathematicsand physicsas
though createdbi'an artist. Hou'ever,the galaxiesarealsocollectiveproduction agents,'settingup' particles,arrangementsof matter,of life and so on. It
is not a questionhereofcontrastingnature rvith creation,but oflikening it to
creati\/emachines.The galaxiesare alsocollectiveagentsilnor ofutterance,
at leastofproduction.
lVhat is perhapspeculiarto what happenson or:r pianetis that production
is airvavsaccompaniedby a transcription:the collectivetransductiveagency
of'nature is paralleled and surpasseclby' a collectiveagencyo1'utterance,
r,vithinu hich the de-territorializationolthe sign playsa major part. The sign
paralleis the particle. It goes further than it in its capacities of deterritorialization,and providesit with an added capacitylor multiplicitv.
'Ihe
de-territorializationthat runs throueh the wholemarhematics/physics
compiexus iur.'olvesscientists,but also a lot else besides:all of political
society,the flux of investments.armies arrd so on. De-territorializationis
produced as much by the sign as by nature. However, the most important
instrument.the machinic spearhead, now sideswith the sign.The sign-point
of this complexuscan be consideredlrom two angles:as asigntt is an agentof
de-territorialization;as a phvsicalpoint,it is the point of recurrenceof the
lesidualph],sicai{lux in the role of anti-production.
We are now concernednot with the representative
functionof the sign,or of
its application, but w,ith the productive and anti-productiveaspectsof the
'fhe
sign-point.
distinction benveenmathematical representationand the
ploduction of physics relates to rvhat we may call a scientific Oedipus
situation. lVitlr the advent of rvriting, the sound machine has become
seconclarv.With the coming of information machinisms,and their audiovisual developments,the traditionalwriting machinema)'now alsobe on the
u'ay to becoming secondary.
To return to individuated utterance: it is something thar cannot be
detached from its circumstancesof time and place, of sex, of class, etc.
Florvever,the moment of inertia i,,henthe splitting-offinto subjectivity'
occurs
cannot ire arssigned
purel.vand simplv to tl"reorder of representation.
Just

The Plane of Consistency r27

whatis it that enablesa sign machineto'grasp'and controla flux of particles?
It is man's specific capacity for de-territorialization that enables him to
producesignsfor no purpose:not negativesigns,not nothing signs,but signs
to play about with for fun, for art. Human intervention so transforms things
that an oral semiotic machine produces numenfor no reason, and a writing
machinein the hands of mischievousscribesruns to no purpose (for example,
thepoetry ofancient Egypt).
Art and religion are arrangementsfor producing signswhich will eventually produce power signs,sign-pointscapable ofplaying the parr ofparticles in
thearena of de-territorialization. The Shamanic invocation, the sign-writing
of the geomancer,are in themselvesdirect symbols of power. They mark the
importation into nature of signs of power, of a schiz that, via successive
surplusvaluesof encoding,w'ill eventually bring rue the wildest dreams:first
thedream of the alchemist; nrst desire, beforede-territorializing mathematicalsignsand the particlesofphysics.It is the dualist reductionofcapitalist
Oedipalist science that tends to sterilize science even as it is expanding
(splitting up into separate compartments research,production, technology,
teaching,art, economics,etc.). It is the conjunctionof the military machine
andthe State with sciencethat determines the importance to be attributed to
scienceand definesthe scopeofits activity.
We must therelore distinguish between the individuated Oedipalist utterance, directed towards bi-univocity, the complete object, representative
application, and the quite diflerent individuated schizo utterance whose
force,whose de-territorializing charges,go out to the furthest cornersofthe
universe.
The phenomenonof physicsdoesnot need to be 'mentalized',but
encoded,made machinic. To read, to understand, to interpret - this is to
renderpowerless.The sign must abandon its yearning for oral semioticsand
betransformed into a machinic sign-point so as to throw itself unreservedly
intothe machinicphylum.
The schizo position, which articulates the de-territorializedchains of
collectiveagencies of utterance that constitute the present-day scientific
machine,
cannot be reducedto the sum ofthe interventionsby individuals.It
is somethingtrans-individual.The schizo scientistindividually produces
de-territorializedsignsalongsidea coliectivemachine. The cutting edge,so to
say,ofthe machincis herethe desire,or perhapsthe madness,ofthe scientist.
His desire has become a sign of power by coming into contact with the
machinism.The collective agency of utterance that connects things with
peopledoes not crush 'human values'. What gives the scientific machine its
super-poweris the super-humannessthat carriesdesire to the heart ofbeing.
Far more powerful than any physicist's cyclotron is the desire that produces
'natural' partide-territorialized
signs- super-particles
capableofexploding
clesinto a multiplicity, and so in a senseforcing them to be on the defensive.

r28

Towards a New Vocabulary

The de-materializationof nature, its transmutations,its new productions,

all dependon the de-territorializingpower ofdesire.The intensityofdesireis
strongerthan the de-territorializingintensitiesanywhereelsein nature, Not
d c q i r ei n i t s e l I t h e d e s i r en f d r e a m s h r r t t h e d e s i r ei n s c r i b e di n m a c h i n i c
complexes.
The questionthen is whether awarenessofself, ofindividuated utterance,
If what is
is a function of anti-production.To this there are two ans\4'ers.
meant is the Oedipalistcogito,rhereductionto the levelof the individual, the
machine is
ego, the lamilv, then the answeris Yes. But if the consciousness
secnas somethingthat emptiesout the sign,the spacein one'sheart,to charge
it with i'rrvholly new power so that it can becomeattached to *'hatever it
wants at once.lasterthan light, then the ans\{'eris No. The tachvoncould be
an elementarl,particie of de-territorializationbelongingat once to physics
ar-rdto the arrangementsolsemiotics. Indeed, perhapsthe very thought ol
de-territorializationconstitutesa kind of anti-matter!
doesnot make
The annihilation olintentionality b.vthe phenomenologists
useolsome substancesupposedto be a vastNothing, but the omnipotenceof
a complex of de-territorializationis potentiallycapableof creatinga multiand awarenessof oneself,
plicit-vout of whatever it touches.Consciousness
and of the nearnessof a collectiveutterancemachine, producesthe most
'charge'of de-territorialization
- a kind of anti-energl',ol
enormousmachinic
semioticanti-rnatter.
The piane of consistencyis thus rvhat enablesall the various strata of
socius,ol technologyand so on to be cut across,invested,disinvestedand
transferred.Does this bring us back to the idea that there is an absolute
knowledge,a superiorrationality, that is the goal of history?No, lor there is
ofreference.The thesisofthe plane of
no questionofits beinga super-system
consistencyas the unattainablegoal ofhistorv amounts to a rejectionol'any
order,or code
attempt at totalization,any reductionto a singlerepresentative
or set of axioms. It is a positiveafhrmation that it is possibleto escapelrom
consistencl .
hierarchiesof reference,and an underminingol representative
Consistencydenies that there is one beingthat would encodethe essenceof
history for its ou'n sake. It affirms the coherence,the consistencyof aprocess
not expressiblein hard and last propositionsor rational theologies.Intensive
multiplicities do not refer either to reason or chaos,or to eschatological
significations.The machinicphvlum runs through all beingthat is held in the
time/spacestrata of individuated utterance. Being in itself, being as unity,
ofthe same,resultslrom the contingencyofan utterance
being as the essence
made impotent.
Diagrammatic conjunctionsare the motive force for de-territorialization.
They are the sourceof the machinic phylum, Only becauserepresentation
has beenflattenedout into exclusivedysjunctivesyntheses
do we find modes

The Plane of Consistency I29

are
of subjectivationisolatedfrom any production.Time and consciousness
not bound up with an individuated cogito.The links in the processof
de-territorialization are the events, the meaning, the emergenceof machinic
mutations.There are as many diflerent times coexistingas there are machines
in action. The conscious human being is simply the manifestation of the
ofde-territorialization,
greatestintensity in the conjunctionofthe processes
thehigh point ofde-territorialization,the point at which the signscoursitself
out,loids in upon itselfto open out into a script that is levelwith reality.
The finality olhistory is not to be lound in a blind machinism,but in the
frnality of desire, in fact of the most self-aware desire of all, that of the
supermanrvho has won mastery of beingin-itself by sacrificingmasteryof his
Solitude,meditation,letting the contemplationof
individualconsciousness.
desirehave lree rein, the lossof individuation in lavour of cosmicengagement
- ail this leads to a paradoxical combination of e{Iects: an individual
hyper-subjectivationof desire (as in Samuel Beckett, for example) and a
radicalabandonmentof the individual subjectto collectivities,that link man
with the machinicphylum.
Capitalism tries to interiorizethe unboundedboundariesofthe plane of
consistency.It arranges ofgans, self-containedobjects, relationships, individual subjectivity. What prevented the organlessbody of the primitive State
lrom abolishing the plane of consistency into infinite lragments was the
setting in motion of the machinic phylum. Whereas the military protomachine destroyed whole towns, destroying even its own soldiers, the
machinicphylum survives.

IntensiveRedundanciesand ExpressiveRedundancies r3r

trntensiveRedundanciesand Expressive
R.edundancies'

and expressiveredundancies.Inten\\,'emust distingLiishbetlveenir-rtensir,'e

sii.'eredundanciesadvancebv wav of intrinsic encoding,u'ithout involving
specificstrata of expression;thus they themselvesremain the prisonersof
encodingstratification.They include,for example,the intrinsicstratification
of the 6eld of nuclear particles,or that of atomic, molecular,chemical or
biological organization. None of these lorms of encoding, reproduction,
maintenanceand interaction can be detachedfrom its individual stratum,
There is nn relationshipof expression,concordance,interpretation,reference)etc.,among the differentstrata;they remain unaffectedby one another.
One can onlv passlrom an energystratum to, say) a material or biological
stratum) by meansof a surplus-valueof encoding,a kind of proliferationand
irrterlacingof codes.but one w,ith respectlor the autonomv and integrity of
the various strata.The heaped-upstrata lorm a kind of humus, or what one
might call a systemof soups.Behind life thereis a biologicalsoup,beyondthe
soup and so on. We thus have a semiotic
biologicalsoup a phirsico-chemical
machine which is encoded .rlithout changing levels. Abstract machines
remain the prisonersoltheir stratifications.
Only when specific,autonomizedsemioticmachinesare brought into plav
can there be a direct passagelrom one stratum to another.There will then be
The semioticmachine
not a surplus-r'alueolencoding,but a trans-encoding.
procedureofabsolutede-territorializationthat is capableofcrossing
setso1'l-a
all the stratifications.Such a semioticmachine embarkson its autonomization with the biologicalreproductionmachine.In fact, this latter is the first
speciaiizationof a reading machine that crushesthe intensities,squeezing
them as one squeezesthejuice out offruit. The machineofgeneticexpression
implies the detachmentof one strand of encodingto act as a reproduction
rnould. Thus there is establisheda s,vstemof twolold articulation: a deterritorializedstrand ofencoding, in other words a strand as lar as possible
a line that is attachedto the
detachedfrom the secondand third dimensions,z
r . N o t e sm a d e i n A p r i l r 9 7 . 1 .
'l'he
:.
r e l a t j v ep o s i t i o n so { ' r h e t i m c d i m e n s i o nm i q h t p e r h a p sm a k c i t p o s s i b l et o p i n p o i n t t h e
d i f l c r e n t : eb e t w e c n g e n e t i c c o d e s a n d l i n g u i s t i c c o d e s ; t h e t i m e w h e n r e l a t i o n s h i p so f b i u n i v o c a l i z a t j o nc o n r ei n t o b e i n g i s n a r r o r v e ra n d s t r i c t e ri n t h e g c n e t i cm a c h i n e .w h e r c a st h e f o r m s
or unrlcrlvn
i g st r u c t u r e si n l a n g u a g ei n t r o du c ea c e r t a in i a g b e t w e e nt h e o r g a ni z a t i o no f u t t c r a n c e s
and that ofcodcs.

intensitiesand diagrammatizesthem. Only the lact that such a line can be

discerned makes it possible to read and transcribe a complex process
diachronically. The processofreproduction, in crystallography for exampie,
does not have recourse to this alignment system of the code. A threedimensionalcrystal,or a solutionin the processof becomingcrystallized,only
'de-codes'
the organization of another crysral lrom outside; it can only model
or adapt itself to it, Unlike the RNA and DNA chains,a crystalremainstoo
territorializedto be able to reach the level of the abstract machinesthat
govern the processofphvsico-chemicalde-territorialization.But the genetic
chain isjust as much the prisonerof the organismstratum.
The same is the case, though to a lesser extent, with the deterritorializationofuttering forces- in primitive societiesfor instance.They
make a start on setting trans-coding systems into operation, but such
trans-codingis still only relativeand poly-centred.This poly-cenrredness
is
theexpressionofa kind ofrejectionolrhe'gangrene'ofde-territorialization,
a
rejectionthat can be indicated by the way a machinic systemis organizedinto
castes.(For example,traditional societieswili try to restrictthe expansionof
metallurgy perhaps,or ofwriting, by allowing them only to be usedfor certain
specificpurposes.)Only at the end ofthe processofdegenerationofsignifying
semiologies,with the emergenceof a machinic utterancecomplex,will the
lines of diagrammatizationand socio-materialcollectiveagenciesstart to
operatewhich will produce the sign machinesthat can really control the
stratifications.The de-territorializationof signs- in mathematicaiphysics,
information-theory,etc. - gives the sign a kind of super-linearquality; so
much so that one can no longer speakstrictly in terms of a sign at all any more.
We have left the sphere of a pre-signifying poly-vocal expressioninvolving
movements, words, dancing; we have even left that of semiologiesoverencodedby the signifier, and the post-signifying sphere of the axiomatized
letters and signs of science and art; we are now dealing with a direct
expressionof abstract machinisms. The dillerence between sign and particle
is blurred; diagrammatization deniesthe primacy ofmaterial fluxes,while on
the other hand the real intensities speak for themselves, borrowing the
method of machines including only a minimum of semiologicalinertia.
Theories,theoristsand economic/experimentalcomplexesform a network of
non-signifying expressive substances which can demonstrate their deterritorializationsin spaceand time, without the mediation ofany representatlon.
At this level one can no longer speakofseparatescientific areassuch as the
areaof astro-physicsor the area of micro-physics.We are faced with a single
universeofabstract machines,working both on the galactic and on the atomic
scale.(Cf. the theoriesabout the first secondofthe expansionofthe universe.)
Thus it is the very idea of scale that succumbs to the principle of relativity,

r32

Torvards a New Vocabulary

and il' there are extra-rerrestrialu,orlds similar to the human, it is as

reasonableto expect to find them in the world of micro-physicsas in other
galaxies.Not that this makesit any easierto make contactwith theml
The existenceof semiotic machines,therefore,correspondsto an intermediatephasein the de-territorializationprocess.'Before'the sign (this side
of it) the abstractmachinesremain the prisonersof stratification.'After' the
sign (rvith a-signiffing machinic complexes)we leavethe senrioticregisterto
pass to the direct inscription of the abstract machines on the plane of
consistency.'Before'the sigrithereis a redundanc,v
of pure stratified informat i o n . ' A f t e r ' t L r e s i g n , t h e r e i s a d e - s t r a t i f r e idn f o r m a t i o n ,a d e - s t r a t i f y i n g
diagran'rmarization- in other words a princ.ipleof transformation that
repeatsthe relativede-territorializations,
and opensup the intensivestratificationson the basis of the de-territorializingpower of the sign machines.
Betrveenthe t\4'oale the semiologiesof significativeredundanc,v,in other
r,vordsall the systemsthat work to renderimpotent the intensiveprocesses
of
de-territr.rrialization.
The stratified encodings- physico-chemical,
biological,
ecological,etc.- having coliapsedone after another,de-territorializationhas
Iostsomeof its weight,The strataare no longerhermeticallyseparated:fluxes
o{ irltensivede-territorializalionpasslrom one to another.Systemsoldouble
articulation of form-content redundanciesrepresentan attempt at total
shutting-off But their oniy result is a relative de-territorialization,a stlatifrcationof lorm that will end by missingits main aim, u.hich rvas to keep a
tight rein on the potentialcreativityof non-signifyingmachines(miiirary and
technologicalmachines,machinesof writing, of monetarv signs,scientific
signsanclso on). After the barriersof'natural'de-territoriaiization,the next
things to go will be thoseof 'artificial'semiologicalde-territorialization.
This
rvill mean the failure of all attempts to give things a representarivenature,
basedon the u'olids, and worlds beyondthe worlds, olthe mind as so many
fortificationsagainstthe acceleratingprocessof de-territorialization.
inlbrmation theory has tried to save the bacon of the semiologiesof
signilication by defining significative redundancies as being in inverse proportion to the quantity of information- but this is no more than a rearguard
semiological skirmish. In fact, the transler of information belongs to a
diagrammatic process that has no direct relation with the significative
redundanciesof human 'understanding'.'Before' the signifier,redundancy
irnd inlormation came togetherin a processof intrinsic diagrammatization.
'After'
it, diagrammatizationstartsoffa processof unlimited trans-encoding.
Between the two, however, signif-vingsemiological stratification still has a
vital part to plav: for in lact the residuesof a signifying processaccumulatein
thc same u'ays as thoseof an,vother strata of encoding.Lines of interpretation, r,viththeir hierarchy of contentsand lines of significance,with their
carefullv monitored expansion, become a kind of raw material for the

IntensiveRedundanciesand ExpressiveRedundancies r33

settrng-upof non-signifyingsign machines.The by-productsof the signifier,
figuresof expression,pre-diagrammaticagencies,are essentialelernentsol
the engineeringof acceleratorsof particle-signswhose de-territorializing
powerrvill be capableofbreaking down the strataofencoding.
The organizationolthe living world first setup this sort of accelerator.
At a
certain ievel, multi-cellular organisms are still coloniesor collectionsof
uni-cellularorganisms,living partly by a systemofintra-encoding,and partly
by trans-encoding.
But trans-encoding,
though limited by having ro maintain
thoseintrinsic encodings,is open to variouscosmicintensivestratifications,
which it expresses
and rearranges.In this sense,it may be said to represent
the starting-up ol a primitive a-signifyingsemiotic machine. But we shall
obviouslvhave to make a radical distinctionbetw'eenthis biologicalmachine
and the a-signil.ving
machinesof collectiveagenciesof utterance.Indeed it is
hard to say whether or not this is alreadv in lact a signmachine.The signifying
signand the a-signil,ving
sign dependon the operationof two other extremely
specific types of machine: first. on this sort of accelerator of deterritorializationthat carriesit to the absolutein order to nullify it, and then
'semiotic
on the
processing lactories' that convert that absolute deterritorializationinto quantum form. It would be ridiculous to suggestthat
the same system ol signs is at rvork at once in the physico-chemical,the
biological,the human and the machinic6elds.Only non-signi{,ving
parricles,
movingarvayfrom abstractmachines,would be capableofsuch an exploit.
The conditions in which they are produced remain exrremely specific,
depending on the achievementof machinic agencieswith nothing universal
about them. The signs of semiologyand of almost all semioticsconstitute
stratalike any others.Just as there are strata of elementaryparticles,of
physical,chemicaland biologicalelements,and so on, so there are semiotic
s t r a t aa. n d s t r a t ao f a - s i g n i f v i n g
g e g r e e sb, r i n g
m a c h i n i s m st h a t , i n u u . ' r : i n d
into plav quanta of absolute de-territorialization.Consequently, then,
thoughsrgnsremain localizedupon particular strata,abstractmachinesare,
onthe contrarv,implicatedin all strata.
De-territorializationis either categorized(in 'nature' or in the binary
semioticmachines into which it is forced by the signifying-consciousness
svsrem)or set lree by the non-signif,ving
machinesof the collectiveagenciesof
utterance.Dependingon movement from one stratum to another, abstract
machineswill receivea greater or lesserdegreeof actualizationand force.
This degree of liberation corresponds to the degree of intensity ol the
'beginning', a siow,
de-territorialization.' lt is as though there were, at the
3. Two tlpes of intensities must be distinguished, diflerential intensities as between different
s t r a t aa, n c it h e a b s o l u t ei n t e n s i t yo f t h e c o m p l e t eo r g a n l e s sb o d y . A b s o l u t ei n t e n s i t yd i s p l a y sa t o n c e
ali the force oi de-territorialization as such, and all its powerlessnessto break away from the
system.
semiologicalde-territorialization ofthe signifying-consciousness

r34

Torvardsa Nerv Vocabulary

hierarchizeclde-territorializationin the intrinsic encodings,and rhen an

acceleratedde-territorializationby a kind ofup and down process.At each
peak of de-territorializationthere is the emergenceof an abstract machine
lollowedby a fiesh stratificatio'. lvith the movementfrom onestratum to the
next, the coefficientofaccelerationofde-territorializationsimply increases.
The abstractmachinesspeedup the processofintensivede-territorialization
until the strata burst apart, thus crossinga threshold,a kind ol,rvall ol
absolutede-territorializalton'.Ifthe de-territorializationreboundslrom that
threshold' we are still in the vu'orldof semiologicalimpotentization (rhe
signifi ine-consciors'esssvstem);if it getsacrossit, we mo\.einto the w,oridof
a-srgnilyingparticle-signs(agenciesof collectiveurterance).

Subjectless Actionr

One can alwaysreplaceany pronoun with 'it',2 which coversall pronominalin', be it personal,demonstrative,possessive,
interrogativeor indefinite,
whether it refersto verbsor adjectives.'It'representsthe potentialarriculation of those linked elementsof expressionwhose contents are the least
formalized, and thereforethe most susceptibleof being rearrangedto produce
the maximum ofoccurrences.'It' doesnot representa subject;it diagrammatizesan agency.It doesnot over-encodeutterances,or transcendthem as do
the various modalitiesofthe subjectofthe utterance;it preventstheir lalling
under the tvrannv of semiologicalconstellations',vhoseonl1,function is to
evokethe presenceof a transcendentuttering process;it is the a-signifying
semiologicalmatrix of utterances- the subj ectpar excelLence
of the utterancesin so lar as thesesucceedin lreeingthemselvesfrom the swavolthe dominant
personal and sexual significations and entering into conjunction with
machinicagenciesof utterance.
One can alwa;,sunderstandan I-ego underlyingany pronominalfunction.
A supposedutterer externalto the languageusedis then taken to be making
its imprint on the discourse,and that imprint is what is called the subjectof
the utterance.A flux ofpure subjectivitytranscendsthe statementsmade and
processes
them accordingto the dominant economicand socialnorms. This
operation begins rvith a spiit in the 'it', the pretendeddiscovery that ,it'
containsa hidden cogito,a thinking I-ego. The elementsof expressionare
taken over by an uttering subject. An emptv redundancy, a second-degree
redundancy appears alongside all the redundanciesof expression.The
phonic expressionno longer evokesa gestural,postural, ritual, sexual,etc.
expression.
It has first to rurn back upon itself,cut itselfofrlrom the collective
desiringproduction, and becomearrangedon separate,hierarchizedsemiologicalstrata. The splitting of the I-ego is the point of origin of sysremsof
reciprocal articulation - double articulation - between redundancies of
contentand redundanciesof signifyingexpression.
The materialand semiotic
r . G i v e n a t t h e r 9 7 4 N I i l a n C o n f e r e n c e,,P s y c h a n a l y scet S i m i o t i q u e , , r o , / r g .
z The French is r/, which means both he and it, The nearest approximation to this in English
seemsto me to be 'it', but readers will find this section clearer if thev bear in mind rhat ,ir' can be
usedto mean he, or it ro a subject, or the indefinite 'it'of'ir is raining', 'it is tue'.
lrrarcLator)

r36

Towards a New Vocabulary

fluxcszrremade to fit a mental world constitutedby being filled with mental

representations
that havebeenrenderedpowerless.Intensitiesfadeawav into
echoes;machinic connectionscome apart; utterancesno longer refer to
.
anvthins but themselvesand the lormalizationof the dominant discourse
'fhe
sign can no longerbe linked directly rvith rr'hatit refers !o, but must hale
recourseto the mediationof the signifvingmachine.The signri ill alw'ayshave
to reler to the semiologiesof the pou'er machines,with their parlicular
svnlagmaticand paradigmaticcoordinates.if it is to produceany e{Iectat all
upon realit1,.To constitutethe semiology'ofthe dominant order, the function
ol'indii'idriatingsubjectivationdetachesand articulatestu'o semioticlevels,
ol the
ihe spoken tord and the written word. \\hile the polyrrocalit,v'primitive'language is flattenedout by the despoticformalismof a rvriting
machine (a por.r'ermachine inseparablefrom the territorial fixation of the
'primitive' writing machinesas a whole lall
nomadic military machine),
under the control of a singleofficialwriting machine:the signifyingmachine
ofdouble articulation.The letter castratesthe voice bv dividing speechup
into phonemes,and rhe voice mutilates the diagrarnmaticpotential ol an
arche-u,ritingby rearranging words according to meaning. The desiring
organized
intensitiesale thus governedby a world ofmental representations
whosepower is derived from rendering
arourrd a ilctive subject- a sr,rb.iect
them powerless.
\Vith this semioioey,there is no longeran1'direct trans-encodingbetween
one semioiicand another,nor thereforeany surplus-valueolencoding. The
so-calleclsemiologiesof analogy,for example,becomedependentupon the
signifying semiologiesof double articulation. Similarl,vwith all the presignifl,ingsemioticsof perception- aesthetic,loving. economicand so on.
lay claim; it
The re is no limit to the porverto r,vhichthe signifyingsemiologies
covers :rll modesolencoding,eventhe a-semiotic ('natural') and a-signifying
(machinicand artificial); the splitting of utterancecomesmore and more to
all semioticelements.The totaiityofexpressionis thus
infectand or.er-encode
that createsa kind of irnaginaryOther World
emptied bv a pure reflexiveness
out of s,vstemsof formalizing now powerlesscontents directed both to
'natural' material fluxesand artificial machinicffuxes.The establishmentof
triangulation,
signilvingsribjectivationresultsin the'it'ofa personological
ofthat first splittingofthe I-ego.
itselfthe resultofrepeatedre-enactments
The toois brought into operation by the arrangementsol individuated
subjectiv:rtionwill becomeboomerangs.At one level, that of the individual
and the persorl,thev succeededin nullifying desirein its relationshipwith
But they cannotprevent
material fluxes,ovithintensivede-territorializations.
figuresof expresthe molecular,sub-human,semioticescapeof a-signi{,1'ing
sion from starting up a new desiringmachine at a quite diilerent ler"ei,and
with a quite difierent power.The sudden,absolutede-territorializationthat

SubjectlessAction

tg7

to
brokedesireup into subjectand object has failed,despiteits absoluteness,
that hastruly
abolishitsellin the paroxysmofjov ofa machinicconsciousness
broken all territorial moorings. (We do, however,6nd such consciousness
without ties in certainextremeeffectsofschizophrenia,drugs, trances,etc.)
Thenceforth these territorial remnan!s reorganize themselves into asigniff ing particles; they rvill provide the raw material for a-signifying
semiotic machines beyond the reach of the impotentizing attacks of the
reflexiveconsciousness.
In one sense,the Cartesianswereright: therogllodoes
mark a radical escapelrom the system of coordinatesof time, space and
substancegoverningrepresentation.But the cogilois still a fiction,for all that,
a machine-fiction.The processofmaking consciouscarriesdesireto such a
pitch ofexcess,ofirrecoverablefinal de-territorialization,
ofdetachmentlrom
all reference-points,
that it no longer has any'thingto hang on to, and has to
inrprovisewhatever expedientsit can to avoid being destroyedin its own
nothingness.It is not even a questionofa binary oppositionbetweenbeing
is at once both all and
and nothingness,of all or nothing; consciousness
nothing.The forceofdesire,at this blazingpoint ofnothingness,wearsitself
out upon itself- a kind ofblack hole ofde-territorialization.
F rom then on thereare two possibilities:that of asceticism,
of castration,or
that of a ne\{' economy of de-territorialization with super-povrerful signmachinescapableof coming into direct contactwith non-semioticencodings.
Such sign-machines in some \4ay take hold ol the absolute de-terriand set it to w,orklor artitorializationofthe representationalconsciousness
ficialmachinic forces- forcesmanipulating a flux of 6gureswhich become,
i n a n e u ' q u a n t i c f o r m , t h e b e a r e r so l t h a t a b s o l u t e d e - t e r r i t o r i a l i z ation.
Rather than adopting Lacan's overdoneoppositionbetweenreaLigand the
real, I preler to borrow Hjelmslev's terminology, and suggest that the
alternative is benveena dominantrealitystratified by the various semiological
substances
of the contentand the form, and'non-semioticallyformed'intensiue
(though let it be noted that being'non-semiotically
materials
formed'doesnot
'scientifically
imply for Hjelmslev that they are therefore
lormed').3
One can, then, distinguishseveraltypesofde-territorialization:
- an absolute
de-territorialization,either in global form with the instanceof
consciousness,
or in quantic lorm with non-signifyingmachines;
-an intensiae
de-territorialization,at the levelof material fluxes;
- a relatiue
de-territorialization,at the level of signifyingsemiologiesand
mixedsignif ing/a-signify'ing
semiotics,whoseaim is to securecontrolof the
e{Iects
of de-territorializationby meansof semioticstrata dependingon the
signif,ving
machine.
q. Cf. Louis Hjelmslev, Esscis/ inguistiques,
Editions de Minuit, r 97 r, p. 58.

tiltr
i$l
ii

r38

T'or.,u'ards
a New Vocabulary

T'o tl-rethree nrodalitiesof encoding,we can thus seethreecorrespondin{

r h l t h n r . .u f d e - t e r r iot r i a l i z aito n:
-- a.rlou cle-telritorializalion,that takesplaceonly b1'breakingthrough or
getting beyondthe strata built up earlier.But with eachsuchbreak,time, the
co-efncientof de-territorialization,speedsup. (One must in lact talk in terms
interaction.)At this levelit has becomeimpossibleto overcome
of space/tir-ne
rhe accumulati()nof heterogeneouslaqades,the stratificationof encoding
resiststranslation.The
sysrems,or at least of lvhat, within those s,vstems,
various coe{frcientsof de-territorializationcreate relative fields of deterritorialization which themselves produce an intensive de-terri'semiologicalsoup' speedsup, so to say' and blocksoffthe
torialization.The
soup',whiie thislattersimultaneously
entire'ecologicai/ethological/biological
'physical/chemicalsoup' . . . and
the
not
destroy)
(though
it
does
conceals
so on. The relative intensitiesthus remain subject to a stratified mode of
encoc{ing(signals,figures,indexesthat do not raisea specificsemioticplane
peryrrusstress,lor instance,or the hol'monalmessage)'There is no translating lrom one stratum to another. There are surplus-!'aluesol encoding,
without an.v significance,and all possibilitiesof diagrammatizationare
r e d u c e dt o t h e n l i n i m u m ;
- an ahsolute
de-territorialization,that accompaniesthe absoluteloss of
porner, with a svstemof signilyingsigns;
* a de-territorialization of heightened
power, wtth machinic systems of
which, in quanticlorms, take
utterance,a kind ofacceleratorofparticle-signs,
possessionof absoiutede-territorializationin order to de-stratifyboth the
machines of the plane of signifying expressionand those ol the plane of
content-encoding.
One cannot get round tl'reparadox of an absolutede-territorialization
beingtranslormedby discrete quanta into semioticunits without abandoning
all attempts to explain hon' the capacitl'of machinesolscientific,economic,
artistic and other signs can inter','eneiri the intrinsic encodingsolmaterial
That there is this absolute de-territorialization in the economyof
agencements.
it produces:
non-signifyingsignsis clearfrom two consequences
- the direct passagebetweensign fluxesand material fluxesin the process
(frorn absoluteand quantic de-territorializationto the
of diagramn'ratization
of fluxes);
de-teritorialization
intensive
- the lact that non-semioticagencies,on the one hand, and non-signifying
agencies,on the other, cannot be broken down in a binary fashion. It is
impossible,outside some structuralistillusion, to reduce them to minimal
digitalizedunits.One can, of course,alu'aystranslateany physical-chemical,
biological,behaviouralor ecotromicprocessinto the termsola mathematical
logic that can be reducedto s)'stemsof binary oppositionand to an axiomatic
syntax.But this will neverprovide an explanationofthe real functioning,the

SubjectlessAction

r 39

diagrammatic agenciesthat produce those processes,their capacity for

de-territorialization,hor+'they fit into the machinicphyium and the abstract
mutationsthey effecton the plane of consistency.A diagrammaticparticlesign carriesa quantum ofabsolute de-territorializationthat puts it beyond
of the material fluxesto which it is
theintensivede-territorializationprocesses
linked.The sy'stemof diagrammaticsignsparallelsreal de-territorialization,
performingits silent and motionlessdanceon the plane of consistencyaway,
from any machinic manilestation in time, in space or in substancesol
expression.It is as though the massivearousalofconsciousness,
in spiteofor because of - its impotence, had exploded its capacitv lor deterritorializationand collapsedinto a black hole rvhich then emittedfluxesof
a nerv kind: a thousand sharp points of particle-signde-territorialization.
From human desire, now made impotent, there has emerged a kind ol
machinic superpower. The territorialized agenciesof utterance and the
individuatedsubjectsof utterancewill of coursecontinueto burn themselves
o n t h i s g l o b a l a b s o l u t eo f d e - t e r r i t o r i a l i z a t i oann d o n t h i s s t i l l t h r e a t e n i n g
collapseof representationthat they trv to achieveb,vmeans,lor example,of
godsof some kind. Thev will try to tame the abstractmachinisms,but at the
molecularlevel thei, cannot prevent the quanta of possibilitythus liberated
from managing, sooner or Iater, to enrer into direct contact r,r,ithnatural,
economic,socialand other encodings.
Facedwith the danger of this upsurgeof the nomad molecularfluxes,the
signili,ingmachinehas to redoubleboth its meansof defenceand its eflortsof
impotentization.Today's signifying sub.jectivitycan no longer rest content
with dealing merely ',r'ith imaginary ghosts, phantoms, benevolentgods,
perfectlv adapted to fit the area of representation,as was that of the
pre-signifvingdispensationof primitive societies.The collectivesystemsof
re-enclosing,of re-territorialization,are held back. In a double twisting
movement.the individuatedsubjectivityturns back upon itselfin reactionto
thesemolecularsemioticfluxes.Microscopicvision and hearingconcentrate
all the strataof meaningupon an ideal point of signifyingsubjectivation.It is
nolongerenoughlor subjectivityto annihilatethe world globally;it must now
takehold of evervsemioticelementwith the lorcepsof double articulationof
the planes of content and of form. It will have to take everv utterance,
whereverit comes lrom, and syntactize,morphologize,hierarchize and
axiomatizeit (cf. Noam Chomsky'sSyntactic
Structures).
AII signsolintensive
de-territorializationu,ill be repressed by the s,vstem of relative deterritorializationof semioticredundancies.Once an a-signilyingmachinehas
b e e n ' l i b e r a t e d ' -a s l o r e x a m p l et h e b a n k i n gs y s t e mo l t h e V e n i c e ,G e n o a ,
- it is immediately taken over by a double
Pisatriangle in the Renaissance
articulationmachine that Iimits its effectsby subjectingthem in practiceto
the particular content systemof an oligarchicalsociety.The diagrammatic

112 Tou,arCsa Neu'Vocabulary

the poweriessworld of representatio!and a subjectivationthat can onl,v,
'lacking' it, I do not meanjust not having it, but Iacking
ever,lack reality. By
in
in an active sense. the sensethat it is continually filled with a lack. The
relationshipof the
machine of the money/merchandise
expressionrcontent
mixed semiotics of the capitalist economy, lor example, will infect all
territolialirieswith its orvnspecificaxiomatics.The jntensivemultiplicitiesof
economicand socialproduction,havingno other sourceofexpression,rvill be
obliged to acceptthesedouble redundancysystemsofform and content,and
the full organlessbody of the intensitieswill be brokenapart b-vthe systemof
surveiilanceofsignificanceand subjectivation.The organ)essbodv can onll'
of a
survive as best it mav b.voscillatingbetweenemptinessand the fuh-ress
rnalignant tumour. The intensitiesrvill be surrenderedto the organization,
the hierarchy,the bi-polarity, the equivalenceand the interpretationofthe
'moving'rvill thus be entirelvshilted
dominant values.The organlessbody of
to$,ardsthe logico-sexualorganizationof a particular socialorder. Whereas
the logic ofthe undeterminedverb left all the possibiiitiesofexpressionofthe
pre-personal fluxes open to the widest variety of institutional and political
framew,orks,the logic of the subjectwill producea reversibility,an equivalence,a pronominalinterpretation compatiblewith the fluxesof capitalismin
terms of ;r grid of mutually exclusiveopposites:inter-subjectiveor intrasubjective,sexualor non-sexual,masculineor feminine,within the triangle
(I-you-he) or outsideit. From rlte materiallogic of abstractmachines,a logic
u'ith the unleashingofa de-territorializationprocess,we have
thaf coincicles
moved over to an axiomatiledlogic rvhosecoordinatesof signification retain
only what helpsto preservethe dominant socialorder.
-fhis
repressiveaxiomatizationestabiishedby signifi'ingsemiologieswith
the pronorninal function is only one example, The same sort of process
dictates the entire organizationof the Ianguage- syntactic,morphematic,
of
semantic,connotative,rhetorical,poetic.All systemsof strata,all s,vstems
strarifieddoublearticuiation(includingthoseof mixed semiotics),contribute
to this sarnervork of controlling, or what we may call'semiologizing',the
multiplicities. In every casethe aim is the same: the diagrammaticflux of
a-subjectivestatementshas to be transformed into a subjectiveI-cgo flux in
such a way as to particularize, forn-ralizeand sr.rbstantifyevery situation, and
to stratify eachof its ramifications- economic,sexual,aestheticand so on. A
a dominant mentalrealit.vpermanentgeneraisubjectivitv,which establishes
lv cut ollfrom ail the real intensities,permanently guilty in law, will aflect all
forms of serniotization, and will always have to be seen as exterior and
attributable to personologicalfunctions, by way ofthe systernofsemiological
dorrblearticulation.Qualitatively,everyoneshouldin theory be equal before
the flux of this subjectivity. But quantitatively, each will receivea share
comrnensurateit'ith the place he or sheoccupieswhere the various formations

SubjectlessAction

r43

of power intersect.In raw, we are at subjects- not necessarily

the subjectso,f
the signifier,bur at leastsubject/a Knowiedge,power,
N{oney.But tlr..hu..s
in. this kind of subjectivity are in lact radically
differenq depending on
u,hetherone is a child, a memberof a primitive soclety,
a woman, poor, mad
and so on. The'it' aroseout of quanta of absolute
de-territoriarizati,on
by way
of abstractdancesof particre-signs
folrowingintensivemateriarp.o....... ii,
the I-ego economy, on the other hand,
fower switches towards relative
de-territorialization;absolutede-territoriaiization
is made ro work rowards
its or'r'ni-mpotenceby the operation of systemsof
redundanciesorawareness
n,hoseefforts are directecl to.systemsof mutually
exclusive, binary opposi_
tions,whereas the 'it' shapeda machinicforceof
actionsemioticalry.,"ittout
passin^g
any judgement upon the value of the non-it, the
slightestmanifestation of an I-ego is over-determined by a whole
set of soci"arstratifications,
hierarchicalpositionsand power relationships.

MachinicPropositions I45

Machinic Propositionsl

The prc,ductionofutterancesbv territorializedagentshad in itselfa certailr

a certain semioticgrasp of material and social
diagrammatic effectir,'eness,
energies. But this was as,vetno more than a diagrammatismcontrolledby the
functioningoi'the territori:rlgroup as a whole,intendedto compartmentalize
it in the same\r,a)'asany other machinismcapableof settingto work on its
own account.,\s utterance becomesindividuated. the diagrammatism,'vill
frornthe lzrnguage
point of r,ierrrt
becomediflerentiated,specializedlwhereas
becomcsirn;rovelishedand lzrdes,lrom the point of viervof sign nrachinesit
can orrlVclevelopand expand.There are thus three senlrotlcareas:
( r 1 t h a t o f t h e s c i e n c e st ,e c h n o l o g ya n d t h e e c o n o m y w
, h i c hi s c o n s t a n t l , v
beingactedupon by diagrammaticmachinesthat lunctionfrom mathematical and algorhythmic utterances;
( z ) r h a t r r f r h e l a n g u a g e so l a u t h o r i t y , t h e l a n g u a g e o
s f b u r e a u c r a c ya' n d
relieion,rvhosediagramm:rtismis entirelydirected to controllingthe resrdual
s e m i o t i z a t i o nosf d e s i r e :
t 3 ) t h a t o l s p o k e n l a n g u a g e sw, h e r e t h e v a r i o u ss t r a n d so f d e - t e r l i t o r i a l iz.ationand territorializationof the other two areascome together.Thus the
u,ork of purging and impovcrishingterritorializedlanguagesimposedby the
fluxe,sof capitalisrntend '.o rcsuit in setting up two quite distinct tvpes of
'judgement'or over-encoding:
meta-languages
of
- algorhl thmic meta-languages
that expressstatementsof scientificj udgerole is
rnrnt sLrppilrteci
bv a rigorouslvcontrolledand controllinglogic,rn'hose
t o i n r p o s ea n d g u a l a n t e ca c e r t a i nc o n t e n to f ' u n i v e r s a l 't r u t h i n t h e u t t e r ancesthey produce.
-- bureaucraticmeta-languages
that expressstatementsofauthority, u hose
'universality"in
role is equally to imposeand guaranteea certain contentof
the significationsand formalizationsthey produce.
'fluth
and authoritv can thus be consideredas formationsthat replacethe
organlessbodiesof territorializedsemiotics.The despoticsvntactizationof
t h e s e m i o t i c si n t h e s p h e r eo f p l a r i s , a n d t h e s e m i o t i z a t i o no f t h e p o w e r
machinesin the sphereof the sociusthus combinetheir effectsso as to define,
r. ilnpublishcd.

concentrateand acceleratethe diagrammatism of what used to be the

territorial machine.These formalizationmachinesthat can modify existing
structuresare concentratedin the handsof a power formationthat dominates
'scribe'caste.But that operationcan be carriedout only ifthe processit
the
involves is deemed to be a universal one: hence the role ofde-territorialized
monotheism,and of the unity of the transcendentpower - science,reasonr
'universal'if peopleare to acceptand
legitimacvor whatever.Truth must be
interiorize the particular power lormation that controls the sign machines
with the dominantformaresponsiblefor linking lormalizationsof expression
Iizationsofcontent. The idea that statementsas such can be the bearersof
formalization,of universalinformation,is the sameas the idea that a value of
universal exchangecan be derived lrom the circulation of market commod'surface'statementsand the fundamentalsof logical
ities.The split between
the signifierparticulartruth developsout ofa methodoftranscendentalizing
ly dear to the hearts of scientisrs;this is in lact part of the basisof their
organizationas a caste,of what dillerentiatesthem from other groups.No
ionger-is it from a despot,or a despoticsocialformatiotl,that the utteranceof
truth proceeds:underlyingall the writings,all the realitiesofpower, thereis a
proloundtuth levellingup the logicalfabricof the signifyingchains.Political
truth is not just something produced by society; the values of desire,
'discoveries'of a completely arbitrary kind, all theseare reinforcedby Truth
existingin itself.The languageof science,like that of capitalism,considers
itself - as pure discourse- to be the exclusiverepositoryof the forcesof
diagrammatismit brings into action.Yet really, bv definition,diagrammatism cannotbe concentratedinto a single semiotic stratum: it is alwavs
trans-semiotic.If a diagrammatic relationship is establishedbetween a
systemof utteranceand a materialor socialmachinicsystem,it is not because
What happens is that the
ol any lormal similarities or correspondences.
diagrammatisminvolvesthe sameinner machinismwithin both systems- an
abstractmachinismof positivede-territorialization
Denying the existenceofpropositionsthat transcendl.inguisticutterances
and machinic lorcesis only one aspectof a more generaldenial that there is
any universal formal law. Diagrammatism brings into play more or less
trans-semioticforces,systemsofsigns,ofcodes,ofcatalysts
de-territoriaiized
and so on, that make it possible in various specific wa,vs to cut across
sratificationsofeverykind. Thus therecan be no questionofany self-existent
Truth. A propositionis true in a particularmachinicfield;when anv material
or semioticmachinechangesthings,it will ceaseto be true. Truth is what is
happeningnow. It stopswhen the machinicconnectionsare broken.Consequentl),,there are as many logics,or as many dimensionsof logicaltruth, as
there are types ofengagement. In other words, to search for some universal
propositional logic underlying all of scientific discourseis to lollow a mirage.

I+6

Torvards a New Vocabttlart'

MachinicPropositions r47

Nlachinic propositions have no hierarchy: they do not start from the simple
and work up to the complex.There is complexityin their most elementary
'Machistages,and their totalitiesmay well function in an elementaryway.
principles,
postulate
is
nor
does
any
transcennics' not basedon universal
it
dent larv.The objectis not to establisha machiniclogic,bur onlv to graspthe
way phvlums and rhizomesfunction. Sincethe stratawhere they appearare
inseparable,machinic propositionskeep cutting acrossthem, establishing
highly differentiatedlines ofescape (lines ofpositive de-territorialization).
These,in return, will becomea foundationlor coordinqtingthem in space,
time and substance(coordinatesof negativede-territorialization).Machinic
propositionscannot be 'simplified'or'reduced' like mathematicalformulae
or logicalstatements.But when they are not re-absorbedinto a black hole of
positive de-territorialization,or formed into a network of lines of escape
unrelatedto anv strata, they accumulateto form residualblocsthat provide
the raw material lor constructing strata. trVethus passfrom a systemoflatent
quanta, inherent in the lines ofescape,to a stratifiedconstructionin which
the lines are arrangedto fit togetherin a s.vstemof multiple articulation.In
the first, virtuality, continually fluctuating with the threat ofa black-holestyle abolition) ensures the possibilitiesof opennessand rearrangement
representedby the line ofescape;in the second,the quanta are rearrangedin
blocks(infinite-limited-discontinuous)in systemsolarticulation from stratum to stratum, Discontinuity among the strata replaces the intensive
nrenral olrjectnor a material one.
'degrees'of existenceor
quantic regime (finite-contiguous-continuous-unlimited).+ We have, then,
This t-'eingso, thefe is no occasionto consider
' d c g r e e s ' o f t r u t hE. t e 2 t l f i f n t e x i s l s , a n d e t ' e r y t h i n g i s t r u c : t h e u n i c o r n e x i s t s i nto
a trvofold stratification: a molar, visible stratification, relating to
o nconsider
e
matter, life, sign machines,etc., and a transversal,molecularstratification
particular stratum of machirtic propositionsand one particular s1'stemof
that captures the energy ofde-territorialization, and lorcesit to spin round on
discoursequite as much as the horse or the dinosaur exist in others.The
its own axis rather than letting it escape)in eflectlike a black hole.So,all the
orqanlessbodv ofexistence,the existenceofthe pure objectbe.vondbeing and
processes
ofde-territorialization- absolute,relativeand so on - will have in
non-beirrg,is not an undifferentiatedunivelsalcategor) It is the point ofall
one $'ay or another to adjust to the state of stratification of machinic
u'ithout coordinates(the plane of conabsract, machinic clilTerentiations
'belore'beingcaughtin the movement
propositions,sincethere is no way ofmaking the fluxeszol have beenstratified
sistency).The intensivemultiplicities,
an
abstract
asthey have been;thus, unlike the abstract machinism, thisis afait accompli,
anothel!
constitute
a
to
from
one
stratr-tm
ofexistence
of'coordinates
subjectionto eventsfor the machinic phylum which we shall later compare
r n a t t e ro f p u r e d i { I e r e n t i a t i o n .
with the function of concretemachines.In the last analysis,at the level of
The functionine of machines, therefore, cannot be reduced eithei to
machinicagenciesin action, the distinction betweenabstractmachine and
logical/nrathematicalarticulations.or to stratified manifestationsthat we
'science'.
phenomenological
stratification disappears:it is as though the positive de-territorialization of
of
r.r'ith
the
aid
sorne
to
explore
have
should
theabstractmachinismand the negativede-territorializationof the stratumof logir: and phenontenologr',what is needed here is a scienceof
Ir-rsteacl
- in other r,vordsa s,vstemof arranging nlachinicpropositionsthat
to-stratum articulations neutralize one another without there being any
machinics
questionof a'dialecticalsynthesis',
cannot be reduced to loeical/mathematicalstaiementsor the realms of
phenornenoloev.

Propositionsof judgement relate to all the different tvpes of utterance

machine I prel'er,therefore,to talk of machinic propositions,Linguistic
starenlelttsare not to be comparedwith the valuesof utliversaltruths. but
i.vith specific c()mbinations3f machinic propositions (that is, of'abstract
r'achines). In recognizingrhe truth valuesolthe referent,lv{einong!canreto
try to escape from a simplistic alternative between existenceand nonexisting
without necessarilv
he said,subsist(DesleArz)
exisrencc:ideal ob.jects,
of the pure
(cxistieren).
He also suggestsa third rvay of being, the ausserseiend
'beyond being and non-being',ar.rda fourth, an nth kind olbeing that
ot.,ject
But his battle with the
negatiolls.:1
c;rrrbe attributed to an objectl.r;'successive
'prejr-rdice
in lavour of the real'doesnot lead him on to attackthe illusion that
thereexistssomeuniversal being transcendingall contingelltmanifestations.
I, on the other hand, prefer to start lrom the idea that there are as nlanl
modesqf existenceas tltereare modesof activity and machinicpropositions.
Tr_iask rvliether.the object of intentionalitv has a reai referenceis absurd.
\ A r h a i.st ' u n d e r l v i n g i' i n g u i s t i cu t t e r a n c ep, e r c e p t i v se e m i o t i z a t i o tel .t c . ,i s a n
A h : r r a r ' iu r a t h i r t et o , , .l r i c h r h e c o o r d i n a t e so f e x i s r e t t c 'es p a c e ,( i l n e . i u b s t z r n c oe l e x p r e s s i o nd) o n o t a p p l v T h i s o b j e c t ,a t t h e h e a r to l t h c o b j e c t ,i s
r . r osr i t u a r e di n s o m ek i n d o f h e a v e no f r e p r e s e n t a t i o ni sr :i s b o t h ' i n t h e m i n d '
and in things, but outsicieall coordinates.As a de-territorializingmachineit
cuts acrossthe coordinatesboth oflanguage and ofexistence.It is neither a

z . A l e x i u s M e i n o n q ( r 8 5 3 - r g z o ) . a p i o n e e ri n o b j e c tt h e o n . H i s m o s t i r n p o r t a n tw o r k s a r e. 0 b e r
Annnltnenltqoz), l'lune Studieni r8;.;-gr), and UberGrynstinlr hdhrerOrdnunglt9ggit
Seuil, I 974, p. 34
a. Ldr;rrardLinsky, Le Prablimedelo riJlrence,

4. CfG. Deleuze and F. Guattari, KaJka:pourunelilthaluremireurc,Editions de N{inuir, r g75,

I48

lv{achinicPropositions t49

Towards a New Vocabular'1,

Positive de.territorialization;

negative de.territorialization

' i n d e p e n d e n t l y ' o f t hset r a t a ,

Considered
t h e n ,a n d o n l l ' a t t h el e v e lo l l i n e so f
escapearrdstratum-to-stratumengaJernents,
de-territorializationhasa positive ancia neqativenature.
Positivede-territorializationcorrespondsto a sheerblack-holeeffect,to an
absenceor abolition of coordinates(one can distinguish betu,eena line of
escape lor the absenceof coordinatesand a line of abolition lor their
de-territorialization,but this verv distinctionshowsthat one cannotconsider
positivede-territorializationapart from strata:in effect,the line ofabolition
inrpliesstrata, and the line of escapeis alwavsa line evadingstrata). Unlike
this intlinsic cie-territorialization,
negativede-territoria)izationis dillerentiai, establishirrgsystemsof determinantsand substances
of expression.Out
of the mutationsof its quanticsystem,positivede-territorialization
constructs
ozsabstractmachinicrealitv,a singlereaiity accountableto nobody;whereas
negativcde-territorializationconsritutestheconcrete,stratifiedreality based
ruponits systemsof connection,interaction,encoding,reproduction,etc.
B u t t b e c o n r l a s t i s s t i l l t o o c l e a r ' - c u rI.n p o i u t o f f a c r , p o s i r i v ed e territorializationentersin varfing degreesinto the constitutionofthe propositions of coordinates and substances.There is a positive de-terrirorialization of spaceat the ier,'elof astro-phvsicsand particles,while, at our
level, time representsa positiveprocessofde-territorialization.It isjust that
\{'eneverha'"e anr,contactwith that time and spacein the initial stagesexcept
via the machinesof expressionthat deal with intensivematerial,substantif_vir-rgit in the br.rsiness
of sub.jectivizing
and stratifvingsemiotization(concrete
rnachinesof s1'rnbolicsemiotics,signilving machines, the machinism of
a u t h c r i t ya n d s o o n ) .
brief rdsumd of some machinic propositions
1A
A. Fluxes
B. Strata
totality
C, C)bject-species
A. FLUX PROPOSITIONS

Proposition
t - Positiuede-territoriali<ation
T'hisis fbund in its pure statein the black hole.But it is a basiccomponentof
propositionsolinrensiveflux (line ofescapeand line ofabolition). In reality,
'yet' a proposition- but that
positive de-territorializationis not
does not
mean that it is an anti-proposition:it exists as much before as after an)'
propositionalitv.

z - Positionalitymachines
Proposition
These demonstrate the impossibiiitl' of black holes as a proposition of
exisrence.
Positivede-territorializationcannotexist apart from the machinic
propositionsthat negate it. The first pro-positionalagency that connects
these two tvpes of de-territorialization is the extensiae
fux. At the level of
systemsof stratification,machinesof positionalitywill later be specifiedas
propositionsof interaction,of crystallization,of catalysis,of moulding, of
reproduction,of diagrammatice{Iectand so on.
Propositton
<erl - 0r t - Intetuiucfuxes
This proposition,an anti-dialecticparadox,shouldbe presentedbeforethose
relatingto de-territorializations,
even though it can exist only in association
with machinesof extensivepropositionaliry.The intensivefluxesconstitute
thechannelolnegotiation ofpositive territorializationlor the other propositrons.
Proposi
ti on3 - A bstract machines
Theserepresentthe peculiar mode ol quantic organizationof the positive
de-territorialization
ofthe intensivefluxes.The negativede-territorialization
of the positionality propositions (proposition z) is thus 're-positivized'.
Positivede-territorializationis quantifiedand put into operationin the fluxes
andstrata accordingto machinic formulae that cut acrossand overtakethe
(Thereis, obviouslv,no necessary
link
systemofcoordinatesand substances.
betweenone propositionand the next, but only a machinicaction.Thus what
was,at the level of proposition e, for example, determination by negative
positionality,determination b_v"
encoding, by the creation of lack, by objectivation, bl' representation,etc. - all ol which appeal to much 'later'
propositionsof stratification- gives way to the return of sheer positive
de-territorialization.There is thus no.4uf ebung;propositionr, in connection
with the propositions of stratification, functions as an abstract machine of
breaking off and innovation without preserving any of the 'gains' of deFrom the standpointofpositive de-territorialization,there
territorialization.
isneverany establishedgain, but only the residuumofmachinesand strata.)
Abstract machinescan equally be defined,much later on (seeproposition
r7), as resulting lrom the conjunction ofseveral processesofpositive deterritorialization,rvhich implies the possibility and autonomv of certain
pr0cesses.

r50

Machinic Propositions r5r

Towards a New \rocabuiar,v

of de-territoriaLi<atirtn
Prorhosition
4 - Thenatureancispeed
De-territorializatiol is positive and absolute in the case of black holes,
qganric in the caseoflines ofescape,negative,continuousand di{lerentialin
the caseof relationshipsamong strata, and non-existentin the caseof the
organlessbody ol the stratifications.The speedol de-territorializationalso
brings into play propositionalcomponentsthat would onl.venter the scene
,later' in a dialecticalphenomenologv- in other words stratifyingdeterminations. For the relationshiP
n r g a t i \ . ed e - t e r r i t o r i a l i z a t t o n
Positivede-territorialization
rvill be totaliy diilerent both in nature and in rh.vthrnaccordingto the strata
rvithin which it operates(strata of elei'gy, biologicalstrata, semiotrcstrata
a n ds o o n ) .
There w'ill be a positive speed when an action becomesrelativelv deterritorialized,and a legative one when it is relativelvre-territorialized.In
the latter case,it is as though positiveenergv were spinninground on its o,,r'r.l
axis. and the orsanlessbody of the stratum would then be functioningas a
kinclofanti-biack hole,while the plane ofconsisten6 could be definedas the
might happen
area rvherepositivede-territorializatiolrs

B . S T R - A T AP R O P O S I T I O N S

poinn oJintetui['t
Propositir,tn
5 - Tlu mecti.ng
These constitutethe points ofreturn, ofoscillationbetrveenthe propositions
'knots' underlie the
ofpositive and ofnegative de-territorialization.These
the negativede-territorializingpowerolthe strata,in
Strata,or rnoreprecisel,v
to becomestatements
as rnuch as theyforcethe positivede-territorializations
of abstlirctvirtrralitv.5
Proposition6 - Redundancies
knotsofintensity that composethe actual
This brings us to the second-degree
fabric of the strata. We can distinguishthreelevelsof stratification:
of intensitl';
(a) The moiecularIevelof the meeting-Points
(b) The levelof molar redundancl: the organizatiotrbetweenthe meetingpoints, which produces an inter-stratum entitv turned in upon itsell' an
'faceanti-black hole ({br example,concretemachines,distinctivefeatureof
n e s s ').
r e l a t i o nt o t l l e s l r a t a p r o p o s r l r o n s
5 . \ ' i r t u ; i l i t v h e r eb e c o m e s ' s t ' c o n c l a r , v ' i n

(c) The level of lines of residualde-territorialization,rr'hichwill serveas

coordinatesor as a possibleconnection- either by way ofa line ofescape,or
by way of a line of abolition.
Propo.sition
7 - Interactioru
Theserepresentthe reverseofredundancies.From them, the stratificationsof
the fluxes can be polarized in terms of zones, of a field, an object, a
constellationand so on.
In stratified,negativede-territorialization,the oppositionbetweenredundancy and interactionrepresentsa reinlorcementofthe oppositionin levelA
(flux propositions)between positive de-territorializationand negativedeterritorialization'in the pure state'. The propositionsof interaction and
redundancywill relateto one anotherdiflerentlyaccordingto their respective
paceof d e-territorialization.
The interaction ofnegative speedsofinteraction and negativespeedsof
redundancycorrespondsto a 'cold' stratification(for example, palaeol.ithic
soclet)').
The interaction of negativespeedsof interaction and positive speedsof
redundancyproduceslines of abolition or lines of return (for example,a
fascistrhizome:whereaseconomicand materialfactorsbecome'reified',the
organlessbody ofthe sociusis positivelyde-territorialized,so that the whole
thing becomeshollow inside).
The interaction of positive speedsof interaction and negativespeedsof
redundancyproduceslines ofescape(for example,capitalisticsocietiesthat
become re-territorialized and archaic in proportion as they are deterritorialized)
The interaction of positive speedsof interaction and positivespeedsof
redundancyproduces machinic actions which get beyond the opposition
(a revolutionarysocietythat wili funcbetweenredundancyand ir-rteraction
tion on the basisolflux and schiz).
As we shall seefurther on (propositiont 7), the abstractmachineswill also
bedefined as a rapid systemofconnecting up fluxes,for the relation between
abstractmachine and machinic agencyoperatesaround the 'e{Iective'taking
overof the strata.

C . P R O P O S I T I O N SO F T O T A L I T Y . O F O B I E C T A N D O F S P E C I E S

Proposition
B - Polari4tions
Theseresult lrom the counter-effectofmachinic interaction propositionson
systemsof stratified redundancy We talk of polarization it,hen speedsol

r52

Towards a New \rocabulary

de-ten-itorializationpointing in opposite directions coexist in any given

Bi-polarizationis one exampleof this, but there can be an indefinite
agcr-rcy.
number of thresholdsolspeedfronr which polar zonesemerge.
g - Breaking-off
Proporition

MachinicPropositions I53
Propositiont 4 - Encodings
Theseresultfrom the interactionofstratawhosespeedolde-territorialization
is negativeand which bring into operatione{Iectsofobjectsand totalities.
Propositianr5 - Encodedreproductions

The eiTectoia redundancyrelating to polarizedforces.

Propositionro - Thearetns
These i:csultfrom the counter-effectof breaking-offpropositionsrelating to
polarizedstrata.
Propositiant t - Totalities,objectsandspeties
'fhese
result lrom the counter-applicationol a breaking-offpropositionsecond-degreebreaking-oll- to fields which thereby take on a referential
position." r\ svstemofspecific - stratified- coordinatesis then set up; the
doubiearticulationbecomesa definedreaiitv,This bringsus backto the point
rn'estarted lrom: the analysis of different modes of encoding and semiotizatlon.
Proltositionr t - Thefficts
These ale the leverseof object propositions.We return ro tl-rehomologies
referred to earlier betweelr
( l ) positiveand nesativede-territorializationat the Ievelofthe fluxes;
(2) interactic)ns
and redundanciesat the levelofthe strata.
But herewe have a further lactor ofinertia, ofsecond-degree
stratification.
Objects, totaliries,speciesreproducethemselveson their ow'n through processesof mouiding, catalvsis,crystallization,etc., whereas the intrinsic
redundanciesof the strata w'ereinseparablelrom tl-reextrinsic interactions
among the strata.With fficts, a new formalismis stratified,a new principleof
stratificatiollis established.The form and organismand so on olrhis prop'origin'
effecton the
ofthe strata.
ositionu'ill havea celtain kind ofretr-oactive
Proltositiont3 - Processes
This reft--rsto eilects involving a link rvith an escapeline of positive deterritori alizarior-r.
6 . C o n c r e t em a c h i n e se s r a b l i s h i n er e l a t i o n s h i p sa l o n g t h e l i n e so f s u r l a c e ' / d e p t ho, r g a n / o r g a n ism,rtc.

T h e s ea r e a s y s t e mo f r e d u n d a n c yt h a t r e s u l t si n t h e p r o d u c t i o no f s p e c i e s
functioningon the basisofa negativede-territorialization.
Propositiont6 - Diagrammaticprocesses
Theseresult lrom the conjunctionofstrata propositionswith objectpropositionshaving de-territorializingspeedsofopposite tendencies,dominated by
positiveescapelines and leading to the production o1'objects,totalitiesor
s p e c i eus i t h t w o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
( t ) they are reproduceable;
ir) thev thernselvesconstitute a lresh stratum that is more deterritorializedthan the srata and objectsofthe original organization.
Here *'e once again find the paradox ol the linking of propositionsinto a
rhizome:the dizigrammaticreproductionin lact appearsto depend on the
encodedreproduction,despite being more 'innovative' and'creative', becausethe surplus values of encodingremain dependenton the strata. But
there have to be stratum and object propositions if the positive deterritorializationof the diagrammatic processes
is to introduce its semiotic
mutationsinto the machinic agencies- and r,'iceversa.Nor must we lorget
t h a t ' d i a g r a m m a t i s m ' i tso b e l o u n dj u s t a s m r . l c ho u t s i d es e m i o t i ce n c o d i n g s
(in geneticmutations,lor example),
Proposition
t7 - Abstractmachines
These result lrom the conjunction of positive processesof de-rerritorialization.
Thus, abstract machineshave a twolold origin: a 'natural' origin at the
levelof propositionsof flux (no. 3); and an 'artificial',diagrammaticorigin, at
the level of propositions of object (no. I6), which 'implies' their being
extendedover all the systemsofstratification.
In reality there is no 'before'or 'after'; like diagrammatism,the abstract
ofcoordinates,ofstrata and ofobjectslrom
machinescLrtacrossthc s1'stems
all directions.

Concrete Machines

Concrete Machines'

wlrat is it tha.t is operatirrg in i^,hat one sees as the featuresof a lace, a

iandscal;e,a body?How do we accountfor the mvsteryof a particularlook, a
thing. a stfeet, a memory?\\rhat is actuallythereto seeseemsto be concealing
sometiringelse. \vhat sort oi'line ol escapegives us the sensethat some
encounrcrrnightoccur?What exactlyare thesepotentiaiitiesof
extraordinar.v
operating br differentrules,differentcodes?The entrv of
worid.
someorher
'rnysterization'.
is undoubtedlyvital in this effectof
memory inro per-ceprion
On the one
lvlernorvcornbinesde-territorializationand re-ten'itorializatiort.
other it
on
the
and
representation,
hand it selectsspecilic ieatures of
take
can
which
one
on
thing,
as
one
can
be
presented
that
whole
a
reassembies
stand, so to say' vet which is in lact whollv suljective arld' in a sense'
<,rne's
w.ill never be able to elude us as reality has. Memory',slines of escapeare
alrvayslalseones,imagesoi'escape,escapesto play at beingalraid'
some memoriestake on specialrveight,acquiringthe functionolmatrixes,
a lunction of'orgalizing the nrodeolsubjectil'ation;it is thesethat we classifr
as the featuresof faciality, animality, bodilinessand so on. In fact, memory
itere is not quire a single w,hole,becauseit operatesat the level of things
ir might be better to talk not of memory but of block:a childhood
tiremselves;
block, unlike a childhood memory, is srill in the present.The featureso1'
or masseswhich are machinesoi'
laciality, animaiity etc. iorm consteliations
want
to describeall thesevarious
I
intensities.
the
actualize
the kincl that
kinds ofbiocks generallyas concretemachines.
The function of these machines,at least those that opel'atein terms ofsvmbolicsemiotics,is to associatetwo typesof redundanc;':
t I ) Redundanciesof representationthat underliethe semantisrnol'images
anclof the syntagmatizedparadignisof signifyingsemiologies'
that put the de-territorializedelernentsol'
iz1 Diagrammaticredur-rdancies
itselL An example of this would be the
reality
sign machines ro work orr
specifications- fbr Concord:
a'd
mathematical
physical
the
bfteprints
what is noted at the semioticregisteris the de-territorializedarticulationsol
the various things that go to make up the aircralt aluminium, electrical
r. UnPublished.

r 55

fluxes,semioticfluxesas expressed
materiallyand so on. But sucha blueprint
is onlv ofinterestir so lar as its arriculationsare sufficientlyde-territorialized
and can be made to correspondwith the de-territorializedarticuiationsofrhe
materialsof expression.Diagrammatizarionconsistsin this interchange,at
the most de-territorialized level, between these two sorts of deterritorialization. If the high points of de-territorialization of the semiotic
systemsare to be able to combine with thoseof the material systemsin this
way, the relevantfeaturesof the materialsof expressioninvolved- their raw
materia.ls,ue might say - must be compatible with the nature of the
articulatoryfearuresof de-territorialization
of the materialfield.The semiotic
Ievelof expressionmust be able to'support' the type of machinicconsistency
of the material (or social)system,and nor abandonit in any way. To take a
simpleexample:vou cannotmake a mould lor a kev out olj ust anything- you
needa particular kind of wax; if vou w.ere to try doing it rvith mashedpotato,
,voucould not hold or transferthe diagrammaticoutline that makesthe ke1,
what it is- If vou lvant to reproducethat outline on paper you need a brush
that is not too broad, and ink that is neither too thin nor too thick. In other
rvordsyou must choosematerialsof expressionsuited to the featuresof the
machinismyou want to transfer.Diagrammatic redundancythus depends,
on the one hand, on the de-territorializingarticulations of the various
materialand semioticstrata that are to be connectedtogether(aluminium,
steel,information, equations,etc.) and, on the other, on the capacityof the
materialsof expressionto use, to activate, to organize that system of
connection,
What I have called the redundanciesof representationdo not functionon
the basisof such diagrammaticconjuncrions,nor do they work lor anl,and
evervmachinic agency.For instance,a picture or a portrait organizesno
machinrcconjunction between the element of de-territorializationof the
subjectreproducedin it and the materialofexpression;a portrait alwaysadds
somethingto its model, as well as transforming its materials into the
substances
ol expression.A picture produced by a computer, lor example,
wouldbe vely di{Ierent:it would correspondto a convention,quiteindependent of the 'creative' idea of the person rlho programmed it; in this case
anythingadded rvould be superfluous,for the ideal ofsuch a diagram is to
allowfor the Ieastpossibleinertia on the part ofthe meansofexpression,and
to transmit a messagebasicallvreducedto a binary encoding.In diagrammatism.semanticor signifyingresidualsubstanceseither of the object or of
themeansofexpressionare alwayssuperfluous.Semanticismor significance
will be toleratedonly temporarily, and the expectationis always that they
will be reducedwith the advanceoftechnologicaland scientificprogress.
The concrete machines of actuai faces, scenery, etc. bring both types of
redundancy
into play (redundancyofrepresentationand of diagrammarism).

r56

Towards a New Vocabulary

Thel, relateto mixed sentiotics;thev activatea negotiationbetr.eendifferent

semioticand materiai registers.At the levelcf the piane of consistency,that
negotiarionis made possible(possibilized)b,vabstractmachineslal the level
of ieal lbrces,it is orgattizedbv concretemachines.Just as otre nray sa,vof
consciousnessthat it represents the impossibility ol absolute deso one can now defineabstractmachinesas indicating the
territr..rrialization,
impossibilit,v 0f anl. quantic. positive de-territorialization.zAbstract
exist not in some transcendentreality, but only at the level of the
maci-rirres
of
ever-pfesentpossibilitvthat rhey may appear.They representthe essence
as
a
substance.
is
exist
to
possible
impossibilitY
possible,
rvhose
only
a
the
Similarly, one cannot think of a substance of de-territorializaLion, or a

Concrete Machines

t57

are obliged to proceed bv way of these non-abstract machines that are

hierarchized in such a way as to make some kinds of becoming depend on
others,particularly the machinesof invisiblebecomingof Oedipal guilt, and
of I'emalebecoming in relation !o rhe sexedbody. How does rhis hierarchization of the concrete machines become apparent? Both by the conjunction of
machinic propositionsat a molecular level, and that of the capture and
interlinking of extremelyvaried lines of escapeat a molar level. Concrete
machinesdo not in fact belong specificallvto the molar or rhe molecular
order,an1'morethan do abstractmachines,preciselybecausethey represent
the possibil.ity
olarticulating the two. A concretemachinedoesnot belongto
a particular stratum, but indicatespossiblepoliticsof inter-stratification.Ir
presentsa practical 'either-or': either an acrion will close in and become
dualisnrbetween being and becoming
the
field
in
impossibilin'.
the
stratified,or it will openout onto diagrammaticlinesof escape.The concrete
Facialitvas a concretemachinedemonstrates
independentof the lormalism of contents.
machineopensup the possible,eitherin the form ofsignifyingcircles,centred
of representation,of anv becorning
perhapson the features of faciality, or in the form of post-signif,vingspirals
Contents are nothing apart from power formations. apart lrom the diaThe features
that let the lines ofescapego offat a rangent,In the first case,the concrete
grammatic operatorsthat function in particular stratifications.
machinedevelopsheavy,figurativeterritorialities,operatingon at leasrtwo
that cornposea lace presenta real micro-authorit\'.One might evensay that
dimensions;in the second,it dispersesa de-terrirorializedline in particlein capiralistsvstems,basedon signifling stratificarionsand stratificationsof'
signsthat tend to eludethe dimensionsof time and spacealtogether.Consider
no authoritv coLrldbe establishedrvithout thesemachinesof
sub.jectivatiop.
'faciality'. A ctrpitalistdoes not have power in a general sort of wav: he
the practiceof transcendentalmeditation now so lashionablein the United
States:we mav find it developinginro an organlessbody openingdesireout
controlsa speci6cterritory, a specificfactory,in a particularcountry, and in
onto an a-signif.ving
outsideworld, or, equally, closingin upon a signifying
each one he dependson a certainnumber ofthose transformersofsignifica'
activitythat alienatesindividualsin line with the valuesof authority, In most
tion - concretemachines.3In each of thesesituations,the dominant facial
casestranscendentalmeditarorsare doing both things at once. (It is worth
features- thoseofthe mother,lather, teacher,cop,judge,pop-star'boss,etc.
'archaic'
concrete
* determine the possible sun'ilal of the other, more
noting in passing that the signifying text of a ritual does not necessariiy
requirethe existenceof a written text like the Buddhist scriptures;it can.just
machirres:the being of animals, scenery,etc. which are connectedwith the
as rvell be a 'spatializedtext', like that of the Japanesetea ceremony.)In
territorializedforcesofaction belongingto childhood,the coundeep-seated
concrete
authority
these
Establishing
Hitler'slascism,for instance,at a mcllarlevel,therewereconcretemachinestryside,primitive societiesand so on.
militarv,police,aesthetic,erc.- managingthe conjuncrionof a longstanding,
machinesis the only meanswhereby a capitalisticsystemcan tolerale,and
indeedan archaic,stratifiedauthoritv with abstractmachinesthat were stili
tuql t() its own advantage,the linesofescapeinherentin the deyelopmentof
'feeling
their way' along highly de-territorializedpaths: thus such modern
productive {brcesand the de-territorializationof production relations.Its
power as icon avouldbe nothing without the diagrammaticpotencyof those
themesas State capitalismand sciencecame paradoxicatlyto be associated
with completelyregressiveideaslike'rapaciousJewsraking over the world,,
le-territorializingconcretemachines.
'purity
of blood' and so on. Similarl,v,we can see rhe conjunctionberween
Concretemachinesdiagramrnatizethe strata;they are the point of interacbecomings
Stalin,the little lather ofthe people,Ivan the Terrible, and the running ofa
rion bctween abstractmachinesand the strataolpower. The various
bureaucraticplanned Srate. The concreremachinesmetabolizethe conjuncof desirc- homosexualbecoming,child becoming'growth becoming,etc
tionof semiotic,material and socialfluxesindependentlvof the relationships
'I'hus,
as being rhe organlessbody of the
not torally seriouslr" one could define corrsciousness
:.
ofcausalitvor genealogythat may belongto the variousstrata redundancies.
abstract machincs, as opposed to the olane ofconsistency rvhich cannot be defined either as the
Thingscan thus be happeningon severaldifferenrlevelsat once.One can say
toralit,vofall totalities, or as the organlessbody ofthe organlessbodies.
of Louis-FerdinandC6line, for insrance,that his writing had nothing to do
anci
neutralizing
the
with
detecting
particularly
concerned
must
be
3. Revolurionary analysrs
withlascismand everything ro do wirh it. It had nothing to do with it in that
re-rerrirorializing ellects of lhe concrete rnachinesthat make people attached to hierarchies,male
his rnachine of literary de-territorializarionwas par-t of a set of abstracr
diminailce. individual otnership, a clinging to depcndence,etc.

! 58

-I'owirds

a New Vocabulary

nTachines,of a phvlum of literarv expressionquite unconnectedrvith the

political and socialbattlesolhis own day; and it had everythingto do with it
in that it u'as only becauseof a particular concatenationof identifying
characteristics,
especiallyracist ones,that his literary machineexistedat all
(lor instance.the role of the concretemachinesoffamilialismand the u'orkers'
movementin his writing) , Consequently,it is not a matter of our having to
make a distinction betweengood facial featuresoperating,lor instanceras
sign-points,and bad ones operatingon a more territorializediconic mode;
in both kinds.
one can find fascistre-territorializations
Let us make a further distinction:redundanciesofrepresentationcan be
micro-redundancies
or macro-redundancies.
In anv signifying stratum, the totality of local expressiveredundancies
relatesto the macro-redundancies
of the effectsof signification.A signifring
stratum cannot directiy engenderlines ofescape,unlessit is on the wa)'to
destruction.In the caseolsymbolic semioticsor non-signifv'ing
semiotics.it is
diflerent.There is not the sametype of centringor encircling.Pre-signifying
symbolic semioticsare territorializedaround a multiplicitv of centres,forming a kind of semiotic segmentalizationin uhich no one of them is pre(post-signif,ving)
eminent,n,hereasa-signifi,'ing
semioticsescapethe systems
ofterritorialization and ofbinarized linear encoding.Thus, neither subjects
the lines of'escapeto a systemofcentring that would over-encodethem and
turn them into outsidelines that could be projectedonto systemsofcoordinates.The line olescapeis part of the territorializeddiagrammatismor the
machinic diagrammatismin just the sameway as the other elementsof the
rhizome.For instance,the line of escapeof a madman in a primitive societl is
part ofthe territorializedcollectivelorceofutterance.The line ofescapeofan
unexpectedactivitv on the part of a particle which is our of line with the
theoretical/experimental
organizationis part of the developmentof science.
Thus concrete machinesare establisheddirectly from the lines of escape
without going bv way of the particular mediationsand over-encodings
of the
svstemsof signifyingsemiotics- especiall.v
not the second-degree
s.vstems
of
significadon.We can therelorecontrastconcretemachinesthat metabolize
lines of escapediagrammatically with those that re-territorialize a signifving
authonty. At evert'level, then, concretemachineswill be the negoriating
point between the diagrammatism of the active forcesand their falling back
into svstemsof analogy, significance,etc. That negotiationwill constitute
the concrete politics of de-territorialization: either the formation of
de-territorializationsis organizedunder the domination of a quantic, diasrammatic de-territorialization; or else it wili end in an empty reterritorialization,in the form ofan empty consciousness,
a facelessness,
that
all the becorningsofdesire and is expressedin a transcendent,
over-encodes
monotheisticGod, perhaps,or the abstractLady ofcourtly love,or a system

ConcreteMachines I59
of general equivalenceof rnoney capital. The great, supposedlys)'mbolic,
signification* the Signifier,Capital, the Libido,
operatorsofsecond-degree
etc. never exist in themselves,but operateonly in dependenceon concrete
machines. Thus, it is not enough to sal that a cerlain form of deterritorializedmonotheism,of the type codifiedby St Paul and St Augustine'
is to be seenin relationto the influx ofcapitalismthat appearedafter the first
industrial revolutionof the twelfth centurv' One must also note the production of new significations,of new interpretati"'ecoordinalesat th level of
the accompanyingconstellationsofcharacteristics,the things that actuaily
made the system go in one direction rather than another: with the Desert
Fathers,there was a risk that it would disappearaltogetherin pursuit ofthe
spiritual;with other heresies,the son was territorializedat the expenseofthe
father; at another time, it had to choosebetrveenseeingl\lary as mother of
God or mother olhumanity; a! another, the decisionhad to be made not to
venerateimagesof Christ for their own sake;and so on. It was via all sortsof
'negotiations'ofthis kind on the
concretemicro-political
Part olthe theological machines that there came to be defined the right to life, the possible
survival of animal-becoming, child-becoming, female-becoming,body(of music,lor example) and so on. The
beconring,all the intensity-becomings
can never be validly deof capitalisticrePreserttation
macro-redundancies
scribedin termsof a singledualisticlogic- based,for instance,on the symbol
of the phallus.The phallusbecamea general operatorof authority only to the
'masses'of
extentthat it remaineddependenton collectionsofactual realities,
events,producedby concretemachines and the samecan be said ofall the
other part objectsof psychoanalysis.
The reasonlor consideringconcretemachinesis that they should make it
far harder lor us to try to describehistory in termsofsignifications,aboveall
of significationssimilar in nature to a particular level of a major power
formation.What one has to examinehere is the whole genealogicalperspective; indeed there is probably no genealogl'that can account for madness,
illegalism,shutting up children and so on rvithout referenceto concrete
machinesthat carne into being independentof the relationshipsof molar
fbrces,concreternachinesexisting independentlyoflarge-scaiebalancesof
power,olthe diachronicimplicationsof the machinicphylum in the sphereof
theeconomv,of demography,of rvar machines,etc.Would it be legitimateto
that one particular poetic madness,one molecuiarfolly, might have
belier.'e
originatedthe diseasedstrain ofcourtly love?You may objectthat this is not a
vital problem,or perhapsthat the time was ripe for the thing to happen.But
surelyit is at the levelofsuch individual madness,and at that levelonly, that
among the various
ivecan hope to discoverthe links, the inter-relationships
concretemachinesthat have metabolizedthe significationsof the period, as
much in termsof the literarv,the eroticand the aestheticasof the military, the

160 Towards a New Vocabulary

technologicalor the architectural,To dcscribethe machinicrhizomeswould
make it in-rpossible
to split up homogeneousstlara ar the ntolar level. Is it
reasonableto suggestthat at everv pcriod, systemsof concretemachines
infiltrated the perceptivesemiotics,sensitivity,memorv and so on in such a
wav as to causethe sociusto crvstallizehuman relationshipsin a particular
wav? \\ihat concreremachine led the collectiveperceptionto hold thar nor
merelv are all men equal - and n'omen too - but that all stagesof human
developmentare equal as r.r'ell?
Whence come the systemsof overall equivalenceof men, rvomen"children - an equivalencewhich, incidentally,has
merely reinlorcedthe dependenceof rvomenon men, of childrenon adults,of
the primitive on the civiiized,etc.?lVhat sort of molar machinehas enforced
the settins-upoflibidinal equivalencesas betweenusefulwork and useless
activitt,, ,',aiuein desire and value in use, value in exchangeand value in
desire,and the rest?At the level of macro-redundancies,
power would be
nothing withr:ut the diagrammatic operarors that empry the microredundancies of their substance and make them work against deterritolializingcollnections.(To takean example:the way the emotionof love
rvas puerilized in the romantic era, coincidingwith a loss of childhood ficr
children themselves,
as they weremassivelysweptinto schoolsand factories.)
Capitalism's general interchangeabilityof values is achievedbv means of
non-abstractmachines.Its homogenizingof personologica.l
areashas been
insepalable lrom the homogenization it has eflected in the infrapersonological arez, at the level of molecularizing the concrete machines.
Indeed it is only this that has preventedits developmentfrom collapsing
under the rveightofrhe contradictionsthat should- accordingto N{arx- lead
it inexorably to destruction.The power of the bourgeoisieover the working
classis notjust a seneralizedrelationshipbetrveentwo classes;it operates
lrom the countlessmolecularpointsofauthority establishedbv thoseconcrete
machines,as thev 'negotiate'rhe various modesof de-territorializationand
manipulateboth molecularmultiplicitiesand massstratifications.a
T'o sum up: concretemachinescoincidewith the existenceof a twofbld
articulationof strata:
- in the meta-srata, the lines of escapeand the abstractmachinesof the
plane o1-consistencv)
they realizethe possibilityinherentin quantic positive
de-territorialization;
- ru the inter-strara, thev stratifi, a diflerential negarive de-territorialization.
'l-he
abstractmachine- or diagrammaticcondenser- draws togetherthe
code, the quantic positive de-territorialization, and the flux. the differential
nega.tir.e
de-territorialization)arld thus in a sensemust be thought of as
a. Thus concrete machines can be said to be molar in rheir strarifying aspect and molecular in
their diagrammatic de-terrirorializing aspect.

ConcreteMachines

I6l

existingprior to dillerentiationsof fluxesand encodings,and to diflerentiarionsamong natural, symbolic,signifyingand a-signifyingcodes.My distinction benveen macro-redundancyand micro-redundancy,in the specific
instanceolsemiotic encodings,in lact coversthat of signifl ing semioticsand
svnrbolicsemiotics,but we shall go on to use it in a rnore general way,
applying it to the totality ola-semiotic lormed matter; its main interest
"vill
then consistin the problem of whether the eflectof diagrammaticconcrete
machinescan be transferredoutside the particular caseof non-signifying
sernioticsto w'hichwe have up to now restrictedit.
It goesrvithout safing that the loregoingconsiderationsin no senseimply
any prirnacyof the molecularover the molar economyat the levelof concrete
for a verv powerfulmolecular
rnachines.Indeed, though it mav be necessary
machine to exist (a revolutionary movenlent,sav) in order to produce a
diagrammaticline of escapervithin a molar stratification,it may on the other
hand be necessaryfor a vast molar concretemachineto be set up to produce
rhetiniestdiagrammatice{Iect(suchas a poetry machine).Most olthe time,
in any case,such 'effects'wili work in both directions:for example,the rvhole
of La Borde must function as a concretemachine in order that, at a given
moment,somepeculiarity,a wa1'of taking a cigaretteor of handing someone
a dish, can relarero the leyelofcoljunctions eflectedbV psvchotics'modesof
semiotization.Conversely,horvever,thosesame psychoticsmust be able to
that it
function as concretemachines to make La Borde the kind of agenctment
is. To produce a concretemachine, then, can involve tremendouslorces,a
kind of semiotic Pierrelatte extracting lrom territorialized ore the deterritorializedmolar substanceupon which irr turn the production of deterritoriaiizedmolecularparticlesdepends.A productive force can thus be
consideredas much fi'om the viewpoint of rt'hat it specificallyproducesas
lrom that of its macro-scopicorganization.
There ale always two aspectsto the presentationol'a face: one turned
open to a rhizomatic deploymentof semiotic
towardsmrcro-redundancies,
svstems,and the other towards redundanciesof representation,which is
where connectionscan alwa;'s be eflected with the hierarchy of power
lormations- the actual laceone seesthen becomingequivalentto the public
presentationof the lace of authority. That pubiic lace is a mask, lor the true
is ashamed,and must keep hiding the
faceof power, in a capitalists-vstem,
to produceanalogies
hollowness
ofits principles;it has to clothe,to represertt,
lor the diaerammatism it territorializesin an arbitrarily chosensystemof
classarrd caste.This contradictionaccountslor the fascinationofthe figures
of rhe judge, the cop, the teacher and so on, and the mvstely of their
diagrammaticcounterparts- the thief, the prostitute,the delinquent.The
keyto the mysteryof the lacepresentedby capitalismand the individuationof
subjectivitl,is undoubtedlythe u'av it is continuallyoscillatingbetweenthe

I62

Towards a New Vocabuiarv

revelation of an invisible binary-phallic porr,erand the uild explosionof

desirein all directionsthat followsthe disruptionofthe old territorialities.It
is not a questionof two 'facialities',but of two aspectsof a single concrete
machinethat pushesdesirero the extremeof abolishingall'faciality'.All that
is preservedof the face is the barest minimum of redundancy that will keep
the svstem functioning; an artificial face is continually being reassembledby
the media. But the svstem is nnder threat on all sides lrom an invisible
becontng;
this in itselfrepresents
the final point oflascination,capturingall the
energyofdesireand making it a desirefor annihilation.Whv are !he machines
'faciality'essentially
of
bound up with the individuatedmode of subjectivation? Whv are thev not linked to animality, or some mode of creating
bodiliness?The diagrammatism of territorializedagenciestends to reconstrlrct territories,or emblems(like thoseon tee-shirts,an updatedversionof
tattoos). u'hereas the production of facial features is an operation that
produces de-territorialized signifying formations. The relevant elements of
the presentedface are there to enabie the system to gain semiotic control of
individua.ls,to connectthem with a decodedflux of u'ork. fhe {bceis never
recognizedas a multiplicitv or a rerritorializedemblem, but onl;, in that it
makesit possibleto universalizethe signilicationsof porver.-significationsof
generalhuman equivalence.The animal totem, the tattooedbody, was not a
way into a universal languagelike that of the exchangisteconomy.With
'faciaiity'.
the distinctive features ofthe face and body are used to serve a
specificnrodeof diagrammatismthat de-territorializes
whole constellations
of desiremachinesand connectsthem up with productionmachines.The lace
is Par excelbnce
the substanceof expressionolthe signifier.We may say here
that the human profiie is like the outline of a key: what mauers is not its
unique characteristics,bur the ellectivenesswith which it unlocks the code.
'faciality'
Capitalist
alwaysexiststo servea signifyingformulalit is the means
whereby the signifier takes control, the way it organizesa certain mode of
individuated subjectivation,and the collectivemadnessof a machine that
createsconsciousness
w'ithout any content,and ofa becoming
that cannor be
perceived.Consequentlvit is impossibleto think that the w,rittenword could
have anv lunction at the level ofthe bodv: before there was a face,there were
features of bodiliness, a s,vntaxof bodiliness; after the face, we come to an
invisible becoming,a blurring, a senseof shame over the bodily elements
ivl".ichare now merely tolerated as left-overs,since the essenceof the laws of
Powerare basedupon the interpretableelementsof a script.

Meaning and Power'

The structuralists'ideal is to be able to capture any situation, however

in mathematcompiex,in a simpleformula- a formula that can be expressed
ical, axiomatic form, or handled by a computer.The modern computer can
'formulate'a picture.
handleextremelycomplexproblems,for instanceit can
picture
The question is rvhether that
is not fundamentally different lrom the
imageswe perceivein the 'natural' world. The picture produced by the
computerhas beenreducedto the stateof a binarv message,a lormula that
can be transmittedin rhe sameway as electricitv;it has lost all the depth and
u'armth,all the possibilitiesfor re-organization,
of the original.It seemsto me
that the leductionsof lhe structuralistsproducea similar result.What they
give back to us is comparableto a kind of technocraticvision of the world; it
'essence',
has lost the essenceof the background lrom which it came. By
I
meanail that relatesto desire.Whatever the complexityof the situationit is
lookingat and of the r,vayit proposesto lbrmalizeit, structuralismassumes
that it can be reducedb;' a systemof binaly notation, to w'hat is cailed in
semioticsdigitalizedinlormation,which can be transferredto the keyboardof
a tvpewriter or a computer'.The human sciencesthink to acquirescientific
status by following rvhat was the path of the pure sciences,(As for example
whenmathematicssoughtto makeitselftotallyaxiomaticby making algebra,
topology,geometry,etc. all dependenton one and the same fundamental
logic,a singlebasicwriting,)
Linguistic analysts,by analysingall the differentsoundsand signs,have
tried to produce a seriesof symbols capable of encompassingthe structure of
all languages- but in fact all they end up with are the features shared by
languagein general.The life of the language- what it means,and how we use
it- eludessuchlormalization.In the realm ofpsychiatry,too,peoplehavefora
long tinre beenproposingthe use ofscientificdescriptions,systematictables
of symptoms and syndromes,but what happensin real life never quite fits in
with this sort of classification.There are too many borderline situations:one
can never say for certain whether one is dealing with a hysteric with certain
paranoid featureswho behavesnot unlike a schizophrenic,though there is an
r, A talk given at the Douglas Hospital, Montreal, first published in the ret'iewBriches,Montrcal,
r976.

r64

Towarclsa New Vocabularl'

It is one thing to analvsea

elementof the deplr'ssive;and so on, ad inJinitum.
structure;it is a very diflerent matter to put fcrrwarda structuralistphilosophy, a structuralistinterpretationthat can accountevenlor the movementof
of desire.
objects,lor pcrverrelationships,politicalsituationsand in','estments
Obr.'ious,one would sa)'; yet it is preciselv this that Freudians do, and
lrequently fuIarxiststoo, rvhen they talk ofunconsciousstructuresor econ'fhev
rvould have us beljeve that the,vhave found the
omic structures.
definitii.eatomic lormula, and that hencelorthall the;-needd,-ris to intervene
with an ir-rterpre
tation or a word olcommand basedupon that structure,that
ibrmula. This rvould sive them considerablepower and importance.I think
our answermust be that their structuresexist not within things,but alongside
them. The structurai approachis one praxis among others,but perhapsnot
the most lruitful or the most e{Iective.
It is:r questionof re-dellningthe problem of meaningarrd sigr-rification
not as somethineirnposedb.vheavenor the ttatureof things,but as resultinq
iiorl tire conjunctionof serniotics)'stemsin confiontation.Without suclt a
r:onjunctionthele can be no meaning.One tvpe olmeaning is produced bv
tfresemioticsof the body, anothet"bythe semioticsof pou'er (olr'vhichthere
.rre lnarry), .vetanother bv machinic semiotics- rvhich are those that Llse
ol'
signs that are neither symbolic, nor of the order of the signifvings,vstems
pow,er.All these diflerent sorts of meaning are continuallv intertrr'ining
u ' i t h o u t i t s e v e r b e i n g p o s s i b l et o s a ) ' t h a t t h e v t ' e p r e s e nut n i v e r s a sl i g n i f i cations.
One n.ra;'savthat there are two types olpolitical conceptionsrelating to
desire. On the one hand, formalist reasoningseeksclues lrom which to
gain accessto its interpretation,to a hermeneutic;on the other,an apparentlv
mad reasoningstarts liom the notion that universalityis to be found in the
'dilection
ofsingularity, and that singularitl'can becomethe authenticbasis
for a political and micro-politicaiorganizationthat is lar more rational than
rvhat rvehave at the moment.
Let us takeas our startingpoint the exampleof tbe patientCarlo Sterlinhas
r o l d u s a b o u t .T h l e c m o r r t h sb e f o r eh e r b i r t h . t l r e l ew a sp r e g n a n L )r ' o m i t i n g
b',vthc mother;at six nionths,shedevelopedfood allergv;at three,w'idespread
eczema;at six, problernsat school;at i\!'ent\',attacksof anxietl'; at thirty,
non-specificvaginitis; at forty, she attempted suicide more tharl once.
Diilerent semiotic conrponents\t,ould seemto have beenat \4'orkat eachstage
of this clinical history. In the caseof the mother'svomiting, tl'redisturbance
rvasexpressednot bv a localizedsubject,but u'aspassedlrom one personto
itnother- like the old saving that when the parentsdrink the children get
druuk. I should sa1,that this is a caseof a semioticorganizationtaking over
ll"orn a symboiic functioning. Such svnrbolic senrioticsdo not involr.e a
distinguishablespeakerand hearer.Words do not play a major part, sincethe

Meaning and Power I65

messageis carriednot via linguisticchains,but via bodies,sounds,mimicr,n-,
postureand so on,
Food allergy at six months. I cannot define the diiference between the
semioticelementsinvolvedin this allergyand thoseinvolvedin the mother's
vomiting, but one thing seemsclear: in lhe caseof the allergy they becomefar
more important. From birth, noises,sensationsof heat and cold, of light, of
contact,of one lace respondingto another, have begun to lolm the child's
world. It remainsto be seenrvhy that new rvorldshould stay attachedto her
skin- is it that she is refusingto enter it, or ro haveanything to do with it?
At six vears old, school problems. These obviously relate to the use of
Ianguagein someway - notjust languagein general,but the languageofthe
teacher,oladult power. lvlany people's luture fate is sealedin primary school.
There is no need to administer an IQ test to predict in advancethat some
chiidrenwill nevergo to university.The schoolmachinemakr:sits implacable
selection.We are now in the realm of signifyingsemiotics,for with school,the
child becomessubjectto sociallaws that did not touch upon such things as
vomiting and eczema.One could not reasonablypunish a child lor having
eczema- bu! no one thinks it wrong to punish her for being unableto get her
sumsright. A seriesof micro-socialpowerstakesshape- lamily, school,local
authority- eventuallythe Statepower.Any therapistwho took no interestin
the child's everydavlife, at home and in outsiderelationships,and concentratedoniy on pure structures,pure signilyingchains,complexes,supposedly
unir.'ersal
phasesof development,would be simply refusingto seethe essence
ofwhat was happeningat the levelofreality and ofthe economyoldesire.
At twentv, attacks of anxiety. These could be schizophrenicsyndromes
that manifest themselvesonly at a certain point in one's life. Somepsychoanalystsnowadays claim to have found schizophrenicsat the age ofthree or
four.I do not seehow anyonecan makesuch a diagnosisbeforepuberty.The
semioticfactors in puberty (new impressions,anxiety towards the unknown,
socialrepressionand so on) are enormously a{Iectedby such syndromes,and
analysisshould therefore be directed to considering the power formations
thatcorrespondto them: the high school,technicalschool,sportsclub, leisure
arrangements,etc. At this point a whole new facet of societythreatensto
clampdown upon the desireof the adolescent,cutting her offfrom the world
and leading her to turn in upon herself.
At thirty, non-specificvaginitis.Once again,the levelhaschanged,and it is
undoubtedly marital problems that are in the forefront.
At forty, attempted suicide.This involvesher in the whole apparatusof
medicalpower, police power, religious power.
This is a very summarysurveyof the main directionsan analvsismust take:
theunchartedconrinentofpower lormations,in other rvordsthe unconscious
of the socius itself rather than the unconscious buried in the lolds of the

I66

Tou'ards a New Vocabularr,'

individual's brair-r,or expressedin stereotypedcomplexes.The analyst

cannot bc neutral towards thosepower formations.For ir-istance,
he cannot
rest content with acting as a specialistdiscoverinsthe allergiesthat cause
eczema. It is the whole attitude of specialiststhat needsquestioning,rhe
whole politics of interpretationbasedon prefabr-icated
codings.To analvse
specific eJementswhen dealing with an essentialmicro-politicalproblem
(which bi, definitioncuts acrossa number of quite dillerentareas)is notjust a
matter of form: it involves,first and foremost,the practiceof what I should
defineas a rriicro-pc-,litics
relating both to the object of study or rherapt.,and
to the desireofthose rvho conductthe analvsis.
T h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t sf o' r m a l i s mi s r e d u c t i o n i si tn n a t u r ew h e ni t c o m e st o t h e
relationship it establishesbetr.veen
what it calls profound structures and
manifest srlrcrures- Particularlv so in the case of the linguistic double
articulation.rr,hichconsistson the one hand ofa systerrrolsigns that haveno
rneaning as such (phortemes,graphemes,symbols), and on the other, ol
chainsof discoursethat convey meaning (monemes,etc.). It seemsthat lor
them the formal level takes control of the significations,in some w.ay
engenderins or producingthem. Br-rtsignificationsdo not comelrom heaven,
n o r d o t h e v a r i s es p o n t a n e o u s lovu t o f a s t ' n t a c t i c aol r s e m a n t i cw o m b .T h e y
are inseparablelronr the power forrlarions that generatethem in shifting
relationshipsof pon'er.There is nothing universalor.automaticabout them.
In an attempt to clarilv the statLrs
of the variousencodingsystems,rvhether
or not the),'passbi, wav of siensin the sensedefinedby studentsof semiotics
and linsuistics.I suggesta seriesofdistinctionsrvhoseenrireaim is to identify
the practical lunctioning of u'hat I rvould call sign machines.
In realitv,
however,one is alwaysdealingwith an interwear.'ing
of severalsuch systems,
with a mixture olsemiotics.I believefirst of all that one must be carefulnot to
confusenatural encodinesrvith semioticencodings.
This first distinction should preventour accepringthe somervhatmagical
resemblances
that stmcturaliststend to seebetweenlanguageand ,nature,,
which rest ultimatelv on the notion that one could gain control over things
and sociervsimply bl' gaining conrrol of the signs thev set in morion (like
ploing back to the ancient madnessof witches and cabbalists,with their
statuesancl Golems). C)f coursethere is a spherewhere signs have a direct
effbct on things - in the genuine experimental sciences,which use both
material technologyand a complexmanipulationof sign machines.
But what I shouldlike first ro do is to referagain to the distinctionproposed
bv Hjelmslrv between the material of expressionand the substanceof'
expressiorr.
It is the conjunctior-r
of diflerentmaterialsof expressionthat has
changedthe pragmaticbearingof the message.Is eczema lormed scientifically or semiologically?
Does non-specificreactivr'aginitis,at particularstages
of its development,have as its major componentthe signifyingsemioticsol

Meaning and Power I67

the social environment,or the interventionof an a-semioticencodingthat
dependson viruses,bacteria,etc,?How much relatesto socialsituations,to
relationshipsof power, language, money, kinship? To suggest that the
signifier is everywhere (and that consequentlyinterpretation and transferenceare effectiveevervwhere)is to miss the lact that eachofthese encoding
components(whether semioticor not) can gain polverover the situationsand
objects conlronting us. On the contrary, I believethat one should not be
dogmaticabout which mode of accesshas priority. Such priority can emerge
only lrom analysingeachparticular situation.
\{e thus already have our first distinction between sign machines that
function by constituting an autonomous semioiogicalsubstance- a language
- and those that function directly as a 'natural' encoding,independentof
language.Perhapsit would be more correcthereto talk ofsignalsrather than
signs.The differencebetweena signal, a hormonal signal lor examPle,and a
linguistic sign lies in the lact that the former produces no signification,
engendersno stable s,vstemof redundancythat would make it possiblelor
anyoneto seeit as identicalto any representation.
We then cometo a seconddistinction.The signifyingsystemis punctuated
and by the objectsto which it refers;Iinguiststell
by signifiedrepresentations
us that the relation between signifier and signified is an arbitrary one.
\evertheless,thereare t1'pesofsigns that sustaina relationshipofanalogyor
correspondencebetween themselvesand the representationsthev signify:
theseare calledicon signs.An exampleof theseis the symbolson road signs,
rvhich do not involve the operation of a linguistic machine. Experts in
linguisticsand semioticshave gradually come to consider that icons, or
diagrams,or any other pre-verbalmeansofexpression (gestural,etc.) are
dependentupon the signify'inglanguageand are only imperfect meansof
communication. I believe that this is an intellectualistassumption that
becomesextremelyshakywhen appliedto chiidren,the mad, the primitive or
any of those rvho expressthemselvesin a semiotic register that I would
classifvas a symbolic semiology.
Symbolicsemiologiesinclude dance,mime, somatizationof feelings(having a nervousbreakdown,bursting into tears),all meansofexpressionthat
form. A crving child,
take an immediate,and immediatelycomprehensible,
whatever its nationality, is making it clear that it is unhappy without the
benefitof a dictionary. It has been suggestedthat such symbolic semiotics
should be seenas dependingon linguisticsemiotics,on the ground that one
can only decipher,understandand translatethem by using language.But
what does that prove?Just becausewe use an aeroplane to travel lrom
Americato Europe,we do not say that thesetwo continentsare dependenton
aviation. AII sorts of peopleshave survived- and some still do - rvithout
signifying semiotics, and in particular ,,r'ithout a written language. Their

I68

'Iowards

a New VocabularY

Meaning and Power r69

are responsiblefor your own actions.There are all sortsofthings you can do,
starting with fucking up yourself and everything around you . . .' Signification is alwaysan encounterbetweenthe lormalizationofsystemsof values,
ofinterchangeabilitvand ofrules ofconduct, bv a particularsocietvand an
machine which in itself has no meaning - which is, let us say,
expressior-r
a-signil,ving-that automaticallyproducesthe behaviour,the interpretations,
,,vantedb.vthe system.
the responses
The system of double articulation, introduced by lvlartinet, masks the
rel'erencetosignifyingsemiologiesExperts,technocratsofthemind'repreprofounddisparitybetweenthe lormalizationoperatingat the levelof content
sentativesol'themedicaloracacle'nicestablishmentsrr'illnotlistentosuch
and
that operatingat the leveI of form. At the latter (which lvlartinetcallsthe
ofs-vstenr
entire
has worked out an
ior*. of expression.Psychoanai.vsis
level
of
of the second articulation), the sounds, the systemsof distinctive
range
same
to
the
whatever
it can relateeVervthing
interpretation',r'hereb)'
so
oppositions
or the a-signifving figures of Hjelmslev, form an extremely
and
order
it
svmbolizes
phallus,
is
a
tree
a pine
universalrepresentations:
eflectivemachine, what I u'ould call a diagrammatic machine,that seizes
take controL
experts
these
itlterchangeabilitv
of
systems
such
on. By imposing
upon all the creative operationsof languageand imprisons them in one
and others to try to
of the symboliJsemiologiesused by children, the mad
ing
particular
syntax.At what he cal.lsthe levelof the first articulation,of written
signif
the
But
can'
they
as
best
sal'eguardthelr econom'vol desire
u'ords,sentences,
semanticand pragmaticinterpretations,there takesplace
them:
it
tells
be:
them
leave
not
will
establishment
.e*iology of the ruling
is
conjunction,
the
re-centringand the hierarchizationof all power formathe
thiit
'Tftis isleally what vou wanted to sav You don't believeme' but
The
my
to
a specilictypeofequivalences
and ofsignifications.
tions
so
as
organize
adjusting
on
go
I'll
probablv becuuseI am explessingmyself badlv'
'structuralize'
power
systematize
linguistic
machine
is
there
to
or
those
all
vour
that
principle
the
accePt
to
actuali.v
int.rpr.t^tion until I can g.i
"ou
lormations; it is basically a tooi lor the use of the law, morality, capital,
symbolicexpressionsareuniversallytranslatable.,Forthepsychoanalvst,it
of
religion,etc. From the first,words and phrasesget their meaningonlyby wav
all
expressions.
has now becomea crucrallf important questionof power:
ofa
particular syntax, a rhetoric that is territorialized upon eachofthese local
interpretattve
same
t\e
ol
control
desire must be made to come ullder the
to
power
formations.But only the use of a more generallanguagethat oversubmit
kinds
all
of
individuals
deviant
language,This is his way o|making
encodesall theselocal languagesand dialectsmakesit possiblefor a social
specializes
pslchoa'alyst
the
that
is
this
it
and
pow.er,
ruling
of the
tt.,e-io\^/.
and economicstatemachineto seizepower at a more totalitarianlevel.It is to
in.
the extent that the two kinds of lormalization(that of the linguisticmachine
l.hisbringsuStotheproblenro|therelationbetweensignificationand
In
as an a-signifyingmachine,and that of power formationsas the producersof
significations
impose
and
produce
porver
of
power. All stratifications
signifiedcontent)becomeinteriinkedvia a signifyinglanguagethat we get a
escapethis rvorld of the
..rtui,t exceptional.ircr-rtuntut peoplemanageto
after
meaningful world - that is to say a realm of significationin harmony with the
consciousness
dominant signification- lor instance,a Personrecovering
ofjolts'
social,
economicand moral coordinatesof the ruling power.
series
in
a
then'
but
is'
he
t'here
therapy wonders
electro-convulsive
Structuralists,especiallyAmerican structuralists,are not interestedin
crossesbackor.er.thett-,,.,t.'otaofsigrrifications'Heremembershisname.arrd
socialorigins underlying the lormalizationof significations,and claim that
of significationof the
graduaiiy fits back into place all the different asPects
they arise lrom profound semiotic structures. It is hard to say rvhere thev
world.
of
think
the meaning comesfrom - it seemsto have landed out of the blue. Let
this
threshold
cross
to
attempr
an
in
Peopleresort to aicohol or drugs
this
me say again that meaning never comes from language as such, from
But what exactly is
dominant significatronsin the op-positedirection
proloundsymbolicstructuresor the mathematicsof the unconscious.Meanredundancl'
of
systenls
threshold, tf,is crossing point of all the various
when
ing is deternrinedby very real socialpower formationsthat can be identified
morning
every
on
we
Put
encodingand signsof al'isorts?What is it that
threshold
by anyone who caresto take the trouble to do so. SupposeI come into the
That
so
on?
and
nationalitv
we get up identity. sex, profession,
expression room wearing a long gown: in itselfit meansnothing, but if I am doing it to
ofsymbolic
components
various
the
of
re-centring
consistso1'the
ofdesire
shon'thatI am a transvestiteit doesmeansomething.Ifeveryoneelsepresent
sounds,bodies;,ofeverythingin the economy(the world oi'gestures,
'come on now, pull yorrrself is also a transvestite,there is no problem; but if, say, a conferenceofclergy
its
own.
that is threatening to break out on
wearing cassocksis taking place, then it r,r'iilhave quite a diflerent meaning.
this particularjob' You
toqether.There you are, in this particular marriage'

systemo|expression(inwhichwordsareindirectinteractionlvithother
hascertainlynot beenany
forms ofexprlssion- ritual, gestural,musical,etc')
peoplesresistedthe
,h. poor". lor that. it is aiguable, in fact, .that some
of somelorms
intrusion
the
resisted
comingol a wrltten language*(juttut thev
rvou.Id
system
asignifying
such
that
feared
of technologr')becausetiey
Children and the
desire'
of
mocle
and
lile
of
rvay
traditional
destroy their
most to them without
*.n,uily ill often express rhe things that matter

r7a

Towards a New Vocabularv

Meaning and Power

'He's

not too
In a rnental hospital,it could be interpreteddifferently'again:
u,ell today - wearing a dressagain.' In other words for a man to wear a skirt
r n e a n so n e t h i n g i f h e i s a . j u d g eo r a p r i e s t ,a n o t l r e ri f h e i s a l u n a t i c ,i e t
another if he is a transvestite.Significationis alrvavsinseparablelrom the
por.verposition.Supposeyou were to bring your shit to someoneon a dish:
atrddisgusting,buI to a therapistit
ordinarv peopleu'ould find it meaningless
which
could be a goodsign.It would representa gift, or an important message
would unfortunatelytend to adapt to fit his o*'n systemof
the psvchoa.nal,vst
interpretations('He's trving to explain his transference
, I atrt his mother, he
i s r e g r e s s i n g. . ' , e t c . ) .
In modern societies(be they capitalist or bureaucratic socialist), all
are centredupon the educatingof the rvorklorce. This is
svmbc'licsenriologies
a processthat startsin irrlancy:\4,esetoulselvesver;'earlyon to do battlelvith
the child's own logic and methodsof semiotization.The child is continuallv
startingwith
s-vsterns)
being drivcn frorn side to side bv contradictorvpo\ryer
his or.'npowerover himself,his gifts,his own leelings,his u ish to run, his rvish
to draw - all of'which are in contradictionwith his wish to becomean adult.
On top ofall this there are the constraintsthat burden the porverrelationsof
tiretarrily and indirectlv burden him too. Tl-rereis a wholemazeof contradictory powersthrough which the child must thread his waf in order to develop
his owr-rsemioticcomponentsofdesire,to disciplinethem, to bendthem to the
direction clecleedby the signifiing semiologiesof the donrinant porver- in
other u,ords, to castrate them. Sometimesthe entire s)'stemshatters,and
thereis conlusion,panic. neurosis.the vis.itto the psvchiatristand all the rest.
The third distinction I have suggestedis between signifving and asrgnilving semiotics.Following Charles SandersPeirce,semioticianshave
concluded that the systernof images (icons) and the svstem of diagrams
should be brought togetherunder a singleheading,sincefor them a diagram
at oncemore and
is no more than a simplifiedimage. But an imagerepresents
less than a diaqram: ar-rimage reproducesa great many aspectsthat a
diagram doesnot include in its lepresentation,while a diagramincludes- lar
more preciselyand efficientl;'than an image - the articulationsrvherebya
s-vstemoperates.In my vier.v,there{bre,one must separatethe two, placirlg
the image alongside symbolic semiotics,and making diagrammatism a
semiotic categorv on its own, a category/of a-signifvingsemiotics- u hich is ol'
the utmost importance becauseit is rvhat we seeat work in the world of the
sciences,ol music, of the econom,vand elsewhere.A-signifving,or diagrammatic. semioticsproduce not redundanciesof signification.but machinic
redundancies(theseare rvhat linguistsrefer to when thev talk ofrelational
significations).To explain what he means by a diagram, Peircegives the
example of a temperaturecurve, or) at a more complex level, a systemof
algebraicequations.The signsfunction in placeofthe objectsthey relateto,

t'Jr

independentlyof any e{Iectsof significationthat may exist alongsidethem.

This is as though the ideal would be for diagrammaticsign machinesto lose
all their naturai inertia, to give up all the manilold valuesthat car)exist in
symbolicsvstemsor signifyingsystenrs:the sign becomesso refinedthat there
areno longerthirty-sixpossibleinterpretations,but a singledesignationwith
an extremell' preciseand rigid s,vntax.In physics,for instance,one can
alwayscreatefor oneselfone s o\{'n representationof atoms or particles,but
sucha representationwould not figurein scientificsemiotization.
Non-signifyingsemioticscan bring into play systemsof signsthat, though
they may incidentally have a slmbolic or a signif,vingeffect, have no
connectionwith that symbolism or significationas lar as rheir specific
functioningis concerned.Symbolicsemiotics,like signifvingsemiotics,derive
their e{Iectivenesslrom their dependencon a particu.lar a-signilying
machine. It should be made clear that non-signifyingsign machinesin every
spheretend to elude the territorialiriesofthe body, ofspace,o[rhe porverof
rociety, and the complexusofsignificarionsthat they conrain.They arein lact
the most de-territorializedof all. For example:a child wakes up and complainsof leeline ill, w,hereupon
his mother concludesthat he doesnot want ro
go to school.Then, changingkey, she decidesto cail the doctor- who alone
canactuallysay,'Your child is not to go to school.'Shehasshiftedfirst lrom a
svmbolicserniologvoperatingat the levelof the child's body to a signif,ving
semioiogyat the levelof familial power,and then on to a lurther levelwherea
porr'ermachinestepsin u'ith lormidablesocialand technicaleilectiveness.
At
eachof theseshifts,one territoriality has been abandonedfor another that
offers greater scope for non-signifying sign machines. A diagrammatic
machine
, the presumedscienceof the doctor, dissolvesthe diagrammatic
machineofthe pou'erofthe school,rvhich has alreadl'partly ovelriddenthe
powerof the family.
The rvhole labric of the capitalist world consistsof this kind of flux ol
de-territorialized
signs- money and economicsigns,signsof prestigeand so
on.Significations,socialvalues(thoseone can interpret,that is) can be seen
at the level of power lormations,but, essentially,capitalismdependsupon
non-signilvingmachines.There is, for instance,no meaning in the ups and
downsof the stock market; capitalistpower,at the economiclevel,produces
nospecialdiscourseofils orvn,but simply seeksto control the non-signifying
semioticmachines, to manipulate the non-signifyingcogs of the system.
Capitalismgiveseachof us our particularrole - doctor,child, teacher,man,
woman,homosexual- and it is up to us to adapt ourselvesto the systemof
arrangedlbr eachofus. But at the levelofreal power,it.is never
signification
thistype of role that is at issue;power doesnor have to be identifiedwith the
directoror the minister- it operatesin relationshipsoffinanceand lorce,and
amongdi{Ierent pressuregroups. A-signifiing machinesdo not recognize

172 Tou'ards a New Vocabulary

i r g e n t s , i n d i v i d u a l s , r o l e s o r e v e n c l e a r l y d e f i n e d o b j e ctthsi.sBvle r l ' l a c t t h e v
acquirea kinclof omnipotence,moving acrossthe significationsystemsrvithin
r.hich individr,ralagentsrecognizeand becomealienatedliom one another.
Capitalism has no visiblebeginningor end.
There is no moment when we are not encircledby powerformations.In our
societiespeople must not gesticulateovermuch;we must each sta1,in our
on the dotted line, recognizethe signalswe are gi"'en- and
proper place,sigr-r
any lailure mav iand us up in prisonor hospital.Ratherthan Iookingupon the
insidehis ou'n bodv and needsto
scirizophrenicas someonervho is paraly'sed
be lookedatter, it might be better to r)' to see(rather than interpret) how he
Iunctions in the social situation he has to contend with, and rvhat are the
diaerammaticproblemshe is facing us with. It is not a matter of
transr.ersal,
ap.ingschizophrenics,playing at catatonics.but of discoveringhorv a mad
person, a child, a homosexual.a prostitute, etc, shifts the componentsof
'normal', take care to let well
desireabout in tire socialarena while we, the
alone. What doesit rlatter to us whether dramas of a symbolic (pre-significant) order or a post-significantorder are being acted out in the body ofa
i u n a t i c ,a c h r l do r a n v o n ee l s e ?I s i t o u r j o b t o ' a d j u s t 's u c hp e o p l es ot h a t t h e )
{lt into the rvorld, to 'treat' deviance?What do we mean when rve talk of
treating a schizophrenic?One wonders whether it is more a matter of his
being there to challengeus rhan of our being there to look after him. When I
t a l k a b o u t ' u s ' , I d o n o t j u s t m e a n u s a s i n d i v i d u a l s( t h o u g h ,i n l a c t , i f ; - o u
have a discussionwith a schizophrenicsoon after a familv quarrel, you find
vourselfstartinsto think on quite differentlines- a therapeuticexperience),
b r - r t ' u s ' a st h e \ ^ / h o l es o c i a lc o n t e x t .T h e s c h i z o p h r e n ri cs f l o u n d e r i n gi n a
world in rvhich relationshipsof signs. or productions of signification,far
and neuroses.
outstrip our individual madnesses

Politics and Desire

Causality, Subjectivity and History'

r. History and the Signifying Determination

i{isconceptionsabout the subjectivityofhistory arisefrom the fact that one
tendsw,ithoutnoticing it to posethe problem of a subject- whetherto afhrm
or deny that there is one - as the subjectthat producesutteranceofdiscourse
and actionsrelatingto history,rather than envisagingit simply as the subject
of utterancesas we receivethem. That there is a subjectof history is not in
dispute;ir is the subjectrhat is constitutedby, and remains the prisonerof,
The
repetitivestructures,signifyingchainswound back around thernseives.
u'orking class,for example,as alienatedsubjectivity,becomesthe classof
classwords - in other words the classofutterances,producing,in a givenarea
'class', and 'class
o{' historic utterance, significationslor such terms as
the
struggle'- rvhereasit should bear within it the historic destiny of abolishing
divisionofsocietyinto classes.Indeed,in a certain time and place,thereis a
specialwaf in which the word is spoken,a reinforcementof the stress,so that
theword itselltakes on a particular class.In the u'orkers'movementthe u,ord
'class'
used currently as an abbreviationfor'working class'is pronounced
quite diflerentlylrom, say,a classat school.
Every mode olthought thus has its own initiatory codeof metonyms,with
particularmeaningsgiven to'Party', 'the OId Man', or even'44'.'We might
takeas a starting point somethingLacan said in his first Seminarof l965-6:
'One need only say in passingthat, in psychoanalysis,
history is a diflerent
dimensionlrom that oldevelopment,and that it is a mistaketo try to identily
r . S e c t i o n st , r a n d 3 a l l s u m m a r i z el e c t u r e su i t h t h e d i s c u s s i o nt h a t l o l l o w e de a c ho n e .T h e f i r s t
r h o w c r e g i v e n t o r h e ' T h e o r . vC o m m i t t e e ' o f r h e F G E R I ( F e d e r a t i o no f I n s t i t u t i o n a lS t u d y a n d
ResearchGroups). In October t965, some dozen groups, working along the lines ofinstitutional
a n a l y s i s ,l e d e r a t e d w i t h i n t h e F G E R I : t h e y c o n s i s t e do f a b o u t t h r e e h u n d r e d p s y c h i a t r i s t s ,
psychoanalysts, psychologists, nurses, academics, teachers, urban studies people, architects,
economists,members ofcooperatives,film-makers and so on.
T h e C E R F I ( C e n t r e f o rl n s t i t u t i o n aSl t u d y ,R e s e a r c h a n d T r a i n i n g ) , a m e m b e r oh fe F G E R I .
the CERFI aiso commissions
publishes the revieu' Recherches,
and a series of Cahiersde reclvrchesi
various public and private bodies to produce specializedstudies (on plant, cooperation, health,
e d u c a r i o na n d s o o n ) ,
z . T h c ' O l d l t l a n ' c o u l d a p p l v e q u a l ) yt o L e n i n , S t a l i no r T r o r s k r , i 4 4r u e L e P e l e t i e r i nP a r i si s t h e
h e a d q u a r t res o f t h e C o m m u n i s t P a r t y C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e .

;sfiFE
iFEgi
3gE
3ffggii
iji
iii
Fiii
iigi
Eiii
iiiiiiiiiiiisgiiiiff
i iiituisiiiiii
giiii
slsgii
iigiiifiililiii
iiigigii;ii*;g
j
3i
E
**il
fE
Fiigii,
iiiiFigiiiigiiiE
E
yb:

I?zi
s iiiiiriiil
iliiitiiii
liiiliiiiiiii ri

iiiisiii*iiiiiiiiig;ggiiiiigi

li*
3g1iii'iaii,{ifftsl
i i;iiAiil|
r?iiiiiii
Iiii
iililiiitlilliiiiliiiiiilii
gi
is
iil
sI
ili
iiaglil
siiiii;
i3E
iiiiii
iiiiifi

gtriiiiiifE
iiIiisii
iiiiiig
fui Iiiiiiiigiiii

F E E :H
:E ' E ; ; E ; q F i
r t ar$s"i
f ;T;rrl=:*#EE;=
E i ; $ 1 *ETi 4 r t 8 ; i : i
i H , iI : . { e - s 5 E i r i * " t ; '
AE;i;;S;t;i"aErigE

3 i;;i+iEE;fi?ii*
E;;Eist;t3lF!E;:g
Z
rtE3I:E:gE!
I i T' l t fEi E
I
; iE
i a aI a i t i
iE:! E',5t.6; ! Fe 3 E-a'a
;sEKilE:*Fg{EiEHs

a , i + 1 5s!: ;s* 3: ti! :i&g=I i: c+

s:;; $;:
F
t
s
i; :f *i e ; : i ; :i

; s ? *l i:? i E
;l l E ; : :
gi63;EyI
;* ;FA:E
EE

i
ah

(u

r!
rd

a
(lJ

ijiiiiiiiiiiiliEiiiiiIi
;i'iiii

uet:81
g;$ciif
Fiiiiii
fiiiiiii,iiiiiEaiEi
iiiiF;lgli
iigisiifsigiiigiiiii
iggii

aiiiiiiliiiiiiiiisiiiiii:itsiiisi
iI

tr

-s

a
(J
o
cl

tr
o

(|{
a
I

o
A
o
lr
I

t
F

: ; i i E
Ei r ' ; ; i i i u ei :isesst :;$

iisiiiiiigill
iiiiii,l
iiiiiiig
sigiiig

si3$r
isiiiiiiii
iiiiiisi{il
iii;
i E'
+Ei
iii3;iilciii}iiiiliiiia

9 r
orl'j

I f E ; E E Eg i $ : ; t :
O

s E E t E j gf i H s s e r . *5 i

>

l
.q

;;E
;igi
Fg;iFi?fiiigE;

3 isEE-.i
E$E#F[$i

' 8 9

i,r: E :P
; f , : i t E
;

ad
d

9 , =

EI{3:r*E+1,;frsE

- o aI
0

- +

bDj

? Esi:t?:E;E;Y=.tt

i ili
i ; tiiiligf;giff
Ei e ; i u E ; ; s f g;;
F
g
gi
giils:
liigilfi
fi*
f
fif;i iifiigiii
F;
*gi;i;
: *t :t a;,g;c i !i r
s$j
iigf
iggiEs
ru:tiisr; iiE
!
ii
iiiii
iiI
lis
E*ii??iii
iliiiilla
illiiliiigaaili;'i''

i?ifiiisiigiiisislliiiiiii:ii
,,s;
ri F

igiijjiifii;$fii*i;sB;s
iiigrg
g ggg
s;iF;r
iig;iiigi
;iigiiifsiiigsg

i
aiiiiiiiiiiliiii,iiiilliisllli*iiii

gI
iI
i
ifi
r{
ii
fgE

i
iiiiilgiii
iliff
isr
iiiiiii
gigg
i*
ii*gii
iiii
i*
;ii
iiiiiiii
igsf
ffiis
ss
E

'5
-

i
d

3';

P E . ET 9

-.-

i o
^ . c

.
:

.
o

?,v E \ fr

A g E F
r U a"r o
354';
i i

eY{ P

. a =

.!

a -a
a a
o R
a d

E 3i-

a y-7
*
ir*
E 2\
E
L

=f

! Fr E3

; E ; . ! i

= = - i ; E

;t$b;
plE:

S s - EI s
I-tte 6

b
d

*
i

. E

<

E !

o - h

= : i - . F 9
o E t ! g
: E b a . ;

d E i I i r f ,
-l - E EEi =
e : + t eE

-; rt -- +*=E; ;- H
: ,ia

EEJ:.I
r = T * - l f3

.lri:

r
i

.i E rE - x
E F i E ; :

i :;ri?

a
!
' A
c
-

E i s r.; :
:.;i;
E I F , !t s

iff;;f;$fggfffifigfffgg5
fgg
g
jg
gfg$g;ifg;sie
rugFff;
fffiiFf
'i';fffggsg
gggif
ggggfi
lffggugg
gigffgggfg
ig*ggjsggi
igi
rufffff
s

tr
g

bo

gi;
giis
g'
f
;if
E
E

'
ia;gii
figiii
iii
itifiiii;iiiii
EEi?iiiaiIiii
s
-!
E
i;'
gl
i
i
aiEi;
[i?iiE}i
ii!
i
ax;
i;
Fa
iE
!ibiiliu
T
r
iE
!
iE;
rE
i
!?EE
Itiii;ii:iEl
?iiiiliiEii

ia;
!lilis
ig,
!lit;i!i:iTl*11,2;i

1!ZZr:!i,gEEj:rii'rg;iii*Za*s

3
o{)

I
O

d
d
0

bD

6 - ' E * E

u 1

t 9

6
o

L > -

(
,

-'r

L
O

: + r : ;g ; 5
;gt* ; l
s t # rE; 3 ;
i ? 3;EE I i
e

E E . . - 33 6 I e

$ ; ' ; ; T F F9 J
F i e a i ! ; t o3,.' ii8

iE:g;Ir
: : ; ; #E; ; P

z,

s 3 i i FFi : o o
r E r A s . E X oE; - E

* 5 * i ; ! ^s:

F * . : : eT :
o (
*9,=:EE:i
E:;:6 $si;

-t

.;i
gai:i=;ggg*
aggi
fji3
ffi3fE
ifiifilFFf
:ijifffi
IEif
iiiiiif
j
i
FE
ii
i
$i,f
iiI
E
$jFfiiff
FiEf;if
F ; : ;i :t g
j
g*f
ggiig
gi
giiii
g
ggiii
igg
ii
ig;

; i 5g = gF,

r
fl
o

:sEr;
;x : F f
ig$' ssxegf g
;+
i gEi ; F: F ! :
E. P
+ .x!

( g \ ? _ :

-s;ft

* F q :r :i t' P
T as ; i : i
ilra

*
e'ct

+
: s
i

. rd
e

>

5 ; d

\!

;is

:g.F
{E:

> - . -

s 53

s
t

g>

-t

rf P

sg
4:e

S,i a

o-9?

>

*.+Fi

lsi

SP? R

: i j :

{
/j

rE:' t

i . f ;;f; ; f ; E ; ; s : J ; i "
'3;?i
ggi*g
e;E;.1
Cig$
i;g33g

, r g: r ; F
=-*. !EE. o; i=t c: R
:+r E
; g: g Eg ; "F1 isr !+i :: lIsi

+ q " ! t ! ; S : ! u i e d ^ a E i E o s- E $ F : s
at'S
i.s

Eyl

'6S.e

9 ? E i

bD
o

o
.s

bb

. v 9
!

b D i

6 3 ( !

^ @ u

u Ee A S S E T i :s
? : l E N S -.' gi : x" tsJ3

x E A - r \ E

slrE s.$*_E5g

-.i

6 a o
S EF S i ' S * F E S

Pg

s s i EI : i E "
s ! Ec I s # f ;
$
t $ ii -H
i f rE .+S b
*I:"
s-l
F"

;F?E.S TEE.

E $ i
E i j

; i F
:
3 S E
^ d g P . . t a { E

E?S

Fi l = _! $
j EE l sEt ;e ; * s E s , 8 ; .dFs "E-SBaF.sEE; *s "!

E
"

$s s

$ {s.$
; t ss E

$F$isr

SES$
F

(n

)
q)

o
Fi
a

!{

{tiiEiiiFe
i;giEE
ii*
E = : t : . ; $ ; 5 i3r #g ; * E '

3giigi
ii;itls
*fjiiis
gfsg
Eiiisi;if
ifi9ii;
is;ift;ffigfaiifi{is
ifiliisfifi:iiEFi

o
tn

U
k

tr
q-b
tq(!

a a

(n

! E
t^

; i

; o
C A >

*
lggisgifisjiiiggg
ii3iill:i:ii

FiFjfidg
i gftgf ffgfiig*gsgim
Fgiffffii'gfffg
ffflrujggggsr
*
g
igffgg;siifirfsFsff;g

f FE.i
fsgffffffgiifiiifiFi
iFFFifliji

fl
d

qJ

bo
bo
5

g * $ * t E ; : ? 5: ; ;; ;I e ;

E i : E * r , F t5i ;i q E * t E E E q E

lri

c)

(J

(U

f.

q)

tr

(J
E

(a
(a
cl

(n

li

iiigggigisiiiiigiiF
s
igir
iiiiiigigiEitg

isfiFiiii
i
g
:
;i:iiigaifiiisii;iiiiii
SjE;iiiEg:gf:gi
iiEi;i
Iii;Egli
;ii;Ifi
Effi
$i{gii
iti{rfii;gEif;
jiiiii;iiiiisiiii
I
Fii
E
;igiii
iiiiF;i:'
E
ijiiii

i;gi;;gfi
iisii*iiiiiisigiii;ggg

g*
tlEgiig!ggjig
fiiijigsiigiigsg

;
;-iiii;igjf!i5f6$f
ii;iiiif
f;[isf
if
5g
g iig$
;i;gi
I
;g
ff
;iigf
iigi
! *if;gigruggg*
gg
i#ffigfigirggs
iiflii
il
f$
iifgig
igig;ig
ggiF;g
iii;ruirii;ff
igsg
iffg
iE
i;ffig
fsii
ig,

(o
i

. a

.!

r i

q =.i

'F 3 : z-f
v

cJ

$ E i 4K !

E iiEmE

'

s
^
;

L
d

>

>
.

E
,

'

= ' n = : o

;.EEE,i

a i., F;+
* 9t x i d.

9
C
i
.

a
>

s Q =
&L , >c 1
3 9 6-0

* F;!{

T F b A H
5 fi'F.E c
H> F ' 8 . 9

-g I IE Ie

e; ' Fs: E
eF
. : 6
ER!3?,2

T E E g i
!U t d d.{: .fi 6F- . Ei

+ : Fr b ;

i En 3 s i
A E E ; & ;

isEiigEiilliia1EEiliii
liililgiiiiiii
il
li iiliaiiiiiiiii
iillitfi
iiilillliiilii
iliiliiallisiis
eillilililligliii:taiiltl

iE;EE;
EfEafr::EEEEg$+

E ,?;
u$cfsi $f$H;f;a:g
seE *
, EF''

Firi$,i$i'tress'u

fgff,giiffi#iifsisggg
gl;i$i$i
c{$Ei
;eii*-E;es;:
i i{ii
iifj3gii-jEFigEi;ffFgg
fiif,
f
i
iiif

;iiiEiis
iiiiiiii igi i:i,iiiii

;;riiF=a3iaffjfiEsgigj;:**
$iu,?,sf +sr
s

o
G

F{
o
t(

c
0'r

**liE
;: ;i tiEgt
t i Eii; Eifa3ig

iiiiiFiiiiigiiEsisgiiiis
iiiisiliiliilliit;ai'iii'iisi
cE
$3Ei3Eig*3!igiiiE
ii:ifiE*sEi

'
;
E;

L
6

d
L

(d

bo

: = ; : I i ig; f
e
; E * l ;r?i i

c)

o
bo

r
()

a o
o ,

g 1

(.)

bD

q)

-i

5 v

= \

i; g; i ;:iE

q):
Y

l-l

.:{

' 3

C)

bho'

>.

q ( g 6
N 5 t r

o > c
.9P
ot
? . ! {

^ c d : P

o . ;
. ! t r o
0

"q

a. 1

o g
.::>9
- 9
0

bo.:

b D ! -

? : x

o s9 HI

o.c I

!.t cbo x:

x tc) 0 , ( !

T 0i

F ?
boj

7 2
>

^ ( J

b 3 9

^.4

Tt

iiig:iifF

a
o

{)

(),

E0t

c)
L
o

ss ,ietigEagrBa;
: g E i Fj $
r :s* *i rt { Ei HE i I
gifff ;EIi gs: s3'' gs ;ei bf 'E,E
F ;gi,E
;Ei
A z E ? ; { A f ; sE i E t
E, i;EEF;E:fii
H$i : i E :! i r E $ : F
EsE*ei$cig;
qE
Ffif
*:
ii E;*cE
5E
HI$
p rEi-c!
q J
42 1
6 .
9 r
a i
v '' Ir
( ) o

_ g : i :F
* ;ist
p
ti i liggf:tigE'ggi"

- ' a q)

bo

s
Frifli*-'.;5
E F g3 g $ $ : e E g a E . ; EfF:
i ;: F
' FgF " : g n $ g i g

'''ffuiiiiifisiiigigiigfif
*;gi{3i"'-r'
;'i,
'Su*;f*
FisiiiE;trgfi
isir
is;
iigi;
iiiigggiifj
sggg;ffgiiiijgt
giFigii$
g
iiig;j
ij;iiisi3ii
iiiifii
iiF
fi
i
f

tn
q,)
ah
a
q)
|i

th

c)
lr
9
t.
a
I

u ) =
O

9 r

';

-.c

>-

:q,)
Fi

> . :
0 . :
O

)
i

4
.
lL
GI

a
r
v

u - c

i "X; P
?
;

bo"':
>

U b -

6 E 6

6 9 -

- c-

! d
! /

q
7

d(=

i q

EY qE
Y =
>,
u'a

3 "

. b 6 ' 6

-'

T b H

: e! 3'
3 i . 9

sE
o - i

9 !
i ' 6

Irq E f
sE; i x_i
=
- :

. 9c ,- 3 2 3
E
c

E
u.!
r 6
:
2

a",i

PhE;* Tit

i-

E E I
t e t
S : ; f ; i u c ? ; >

2 g ^ o r - : - ! - :

5 ll I

l u , n c d c ^ 9 i i

t H E P;';

'

=
-

>

3
i .5g G: !; b: gi E
' E9 :3; :

d
d

E E : i E a T V
6

3's E

F ,_ ^dd

.9 3 c s 9'i

,^

.:; o d P 3
i ?^ : =0 3
^ - a t - e
q G Y S q Y ; ;
F

.E
7

h-

O 3 Z f rg E F ET

h-

gg ggf #si
fgig
rujf
ffig
gf ffjf f
f
Egf
ff
;
ssf:ffff
ryf
f
igff
ifff

iiiiiiliiirii{iliiilii
lE:lssliiii
a?a?iii

ili
Ii;iliii:iiiiiiiia*
ilff;iiiiiiii'igisl:

. . ;

6i

9)

>--6

^ - @6

q -

' -O

5" , ' d; ; r o -

t+;

u l Y

E= E *

St 9 i

e -

S 3

9v;'7

Y :

O-E

O _

-d

. 9 9 8 , ! F
tr t-s
tr ^
- y ;.*:i ;

,C

c > . o + : . i
d s t r 9 0 9

U 5 9 o . i U
' ; : ; 6
9

( ='tZ. -A

U ::.9 i

-H 3E
E3
s-l--

^
g

. c

' s

i'i

!
d

od

O
o

q=

E:aEcI

6
- s. s
- g; :e; !* lFa;

s i l r * 1 3 .
: * - 3 c H= f f !

J , FE
! 3 E F i

:5 st . i) i E
::;EF
< s E;

S ; c i il { i

-s gEF=,2,

; ; iEE*f

gF'$fif;9fu gi;i;;r
igg:,fF
si?
FEi
s'eaifit:
giiiifiififu
isffr;;;:
a#isgsiii
g
gggf
EgggiFff;
igii
;

ri;gigFg
O

3 f g60-.=it

o.^'!
o' - ' - J t
i - ' o ^ o
O ^

gy#3gE
5gEf rf i fi;: i5

.!

t'-1

i
-

' E G
6

i i 3
v

:
Q
o

n
x
=

i
>
, _ o
O
o

? . e
. - =
A

U
al
q
! l
9

x
A

, . ^

(t)

H
g

o.r

=
E
k

,-

U ) :

^ o x i
f

d F t r

^
=

R
c
i ; o
S *

< u

q-

F ' s - : -

\.:

':i

.S :
F s ;.:

a s
s r a

si
R

P :

s:r:

E
F F i l E - I S
s_

e \ s.I EFE5

o
x

o
:

^
!u

-:
a

r
'

O
!^
i
X
t
v
X
i ^
"

" . i . 4
o
J

, +=

ot
e

?
u.

Pps

c
O

U h S U

^- t
; .

r
-w
d

; ,

J - C
+
s
cd I
tl
4! - v

'
;
a
=
o
t
r
t
6
r
l
O
- a
L 6
lr

+
I
l
e
ld

*X i i X
J

::

>,;.i,,i
v

tr

d-

.=
!

9"
O

Ii
iI$iEi;i!iiiii
ii?iiiii
El
3iiiiiiiiiiiiIillgi{ii

.**lrs*sF{*a

Fr.- E !-S

} E T F .

- \ t S - i ! o ' = S 3

S E'i

3.S f,N {

:
Y

E
c

'iits:sds;
-

4
'l
A
.=
:
?
.!
'< = t

^
T
l,

:u

'o t
, \
\
s
:

-I

6;

Igg
ii*sffiiiiif
rgiiifiisgifiiiiif
figifggiiiigflisifjiiii:{f
f

giii{ggsffifE

SgffiiiFlii;gig
.fifi!Eli{igiFE
'
Fgffifiiiifiii
fi3ffif3fiii

>'
lr
o
o

X
(lJ
l-l

o
r

i
l

o
-

:
5

@
i

$;

.9? $=
E N m b

tElEilS

ao

Ee

B $
- Ein'ts
i-l
3 ; I : ; f i a gd
Y*'q q

;: EI E
ti i o
e ;= , ! 3

l*q

F = 3 E : u r i F f ; E u ; ; - s a : Ee i $

- T
5 E
; a1i E
#
F
,
! .
i:
F-i*qrr .l:

=
. i i

e -.b@'F.--*Z*t

; f; s i ! r , H , H g i F
f-iE;,$1gE
s 9g .E 3 T . ;i d
5 i - i r r i r s F ; $ r E i ;E t r g : ; Er ? e g r : g l E F ; E p
_

$ $ ;

E a ': ;

$ $ + $ $ ^ ; f F $ " = " f: ? ; : : i * : s ; * r r 3 5 F AI s e * - ; i '

$ c Es

* g a : =g! E$

; i:;$r i5tEiFFiiIiIE;t;lifie:;.

s $
F ,e

E ? a

E^{ ;

i i g g*: c t E f i,i pr r c jt:iai !gg - 3

: r V ? ! ; ; : y g :i - i t g f ; 1 ; : ? r ! ? s; { C :

; s EFi = Ji Eg t * f ; 3 E jI :*if r; a : : iE ; g ; H E ;
:;S,Fif*"faa
<<a? F i;i i*'

ilEiilltulililiiililrr

&'

q$

s'

E i ; ?* I

:gr*l

rT

!x

:i'

i::g;E E-s

E i

f 5; E-q -E ;e e+;q-f

; E f ; 5 f ; { iE
* f l ; i = ; Y g a ;E
* g E F-}q E
o

:
F

I
U =
d ) \

s;*isc
E=i{]:lEg
iE*ti[E$3
i -{s3
()o()

(-r,

!t

d r

E.
>

X55-

OOO

8.

Eb o

d(jd

s; 1 a
E ? f i l " j * $F r1 , 1s
;1 d' aEiEcl-e:H-- F
iFro;

+
F
:
+
s, *s .. =i a- _o o'Ai eE =: :: 6: 'i S
q EHtsi*i:*

Er e ;i^:e?i b^

yi
-
P

a 1

'
'

o
N

O
N
F

O
i
e

d
d

.a
X
+
S^
-

: ;

^i*- g-.b- S
i ?
x-=
t_q
; g ! ; r :- J . :i -' l o

;< e,c

.:

j\

o-

s t'!; sE
5 m ; E : F i

i
a.! iA S'9
E - XG s-i.: a

6 6 d 6 5 \
UC.)
O(J

- 3

S,

5
(J

f* 6
n?q;
s
:
x
Ei';*
lsli
eqE.e
gsf+iI$i
;:oi1-.,{A iE+E

.4"

_ '

E=
EF
. g g E ; E E = * T E E ' ' 3 d * g E E; E
E E: g[ Bg: :

: + : t
Y ' A d . d d ;

o . :
F
: . =

r;*brii i rsi;i iE
Es'il;l
i;.'; ;;;?;

(J

F; i
e(-)

?
o
{

?.

:
:3
E :; ^
2

; ; - ; = ; i s F: i ?s tEs: Et : un; - i t ; f- a c :; -g*t?tt gsr $ *

oooa-()

c9OO

ooo

ou

OO--O

q d

iddc:96

o -

,*== ;;T

-O

E: * - E - d
! ,! ; t r
*3{ Hairs
!
:
{
f
g
{
i
i

r
:
$
,
p
^
:
H
G
:
3
.
;
!
E
i
:
*

:
t
I
:
B
:
;
*
l
;
E
"
t. tE
; a ; *$:4r jeAji i i io?
zq - di yo d- dyn_ z E ;.* ; -E= tE; gt Eg : S$= r- F3 =E t=g= i: g
E =-=g.: E
?
Xs\ a r , sE =
n
' - : . 9 f t f t f t G i E d u = = = = a =

c: ooOoc.)

;s
i?n * 3 lE : ! E r + t - : f;

*g-3ii
.,li+;.,9;3
E

:
: i i i i ; i ; ; [ f : t i ? = i a E : r i * ; - _ _;:]ru* .i e

- i E E : * i s It r r T r s = i u E : ; t E ; : ; i F r n r F E E = E ; i E
!;;s;
'ti
sT E: ;Ei rE!EES r; !* E ? ; ;=*iu
! ; ; : i * lt i i i ; E l l f c *t i=; i e } ;

I \

s-

$ *q , *

O O O

;? * $ $

i "ii : $ ir

;E : F I i E ; ; } t E ! i g F F F '
c * : J[ .EEEE
E E = : C3l tU
? 'I ; ; Ee; U
%

ai

s s.!

" . i u = *' $ i . : l : * u i ; I l3.3 i- , ;*r EE; gEi Bs l*F;$f t;Fv ;

; q + r : ' = i , i : ? !l ^ $ l i * r Fz ;

- 3 r ; - p : ; l e:;:i+g; : i i : - a y! l; iqs " E 'iiilE l ' t* ?

i jf E
+ I! :::;=-c;
E i i t ; ? i i | f S e i ? a ; l = ?i *. ?*
X t;;;! 'i-.3E
jE-;E;i iEE; E; { !
s
s
; =;;s;iii;,;;;EF:=:;s33

; ;

A ;

6" g

::

E 8

-" {

@
6

:
o

;e

*
r r

@ X;

i
o

:;$i

Bs

!.ur^:

eE l,;=

i=:.q

'

* .T: o^; T
.e:

"

d
:

^F
F.:

Ci
;E

,:.s

rE

5 ,*
f '
; T
g
Ei ?E
:
g
q
a
+
:
i
?
" ! E *=l = s F F:+*:E; ge; E
E
g
r!;
$;gF gI

s E - :

y
3
n { S
ss 1
*$!5_

e ;
+; ;

F
*

:Hi E

i a s; : ; =t I i $ t E ;. _
E :i . , r , , ,F q l ; , q u s

;
": B

S S - * ! i : * E E t t , S F ; , S * * j ; ;: * t - T f d F F E F ; $ S 5 : R g

f E ' ! ; i Ei ; : i " E l : ; $ ; : + ;
j
^ " 9 ; F;
u tan
+r $: ;E
$ t ; i ' e E E *ec;ai sEi t[ .E F irgEE{i E
li ta; i " i ; i
i

$
{

;i

: ;E
=
; fe e t 5
FI .*f!Esft*E3q:;;F?iEE=l;:E

ai;:;$ii
E:::"Fii{,ii;E
eEai
F
i$fE
iEE:;sFff-5
!j*E:;S*jlgi!
ai;iE3s*ssiFF5F;tsiiFf;fE
jgEgj

EEEtg-;:r;r{
'- ig ; sHse
s;i;- $ a

: * * - i = i " . i g ? ; E , i q i*{, i
- i g i ; ; ! 1- I "
it u t

g E , . ; i..:: i i
s tq
s; :e+Fi*t 'r; 3
? 6 ? ; , ; r=a
eg
; 3i *g[E
_fcit?3ll*$_;,g;

Es;f :; i : =i :_: ;
; i i E i -i A iEi i3E : e t : E ? is* i ,giag

ooo

r Ee E ; i aFgEgEt i i $EE
? ; ; ? i t ' l i 5 iE
gF
* iEEgEE
$ s$r E

s E S i :ti,=; .*tis E g i E = i i r

E + , si ? ; i , :i + i t . : * , $ *F i s s ;, $ *t * ' i F , a E i =

uili:' *

;:;s?r,gt? IFiEii*
istSla,'i.l,i
{ i?-i;
-st
=$$ui
-St
=*5
IS
rgs
s
g:E
gE
ggj
3s
sgj
E
5i
i;
;
; gg
igg3-5

si=i$

s q;

$
$t
9';-i$
$EF
!
s E$i ; : i i += g ;ai . s $ n , , * $ ; s- $ g

E;
sic
i{s.f;a
;5s,
riaFiliiFFi'ifui;$
sfr$$
*5gsJ$lag
*gi$5;;;;tir:;+;;+$s'$iSg
sss.$
5f5
i s F

!-

ggfEggiigf
,;*s3
fiiiFsii*;sii;d
$$$,:e

; u 3
*
+ : : : ;t !g: ?. ,s9 " ii ui i o qg :; U
;{;3g=n,
, u = [ ; - i : i g $i* - ; ; i g ; $ t r ; q s; Et
i;
.s
gggggs,,,
3rggi *g; rgiFg,E*a#=
j so*sssg$;S

,gnEq s

. ; $ Ei a r ? s
;gr_
; : ; i l 3 5: 1 : i
.sa ?
c "zl o , E
=$p ?
fx
;ritfulinsqifisE*iaqs*?
r ,tl.ei ; q t i g :
; gEl*.;,
iSt:sgi$i_;
?Fi?EfEEiiii;sisiiiE

E
""

r '

r u

ei

O O O O O O O

O O

.*

O ( 5 O O O O v v v v

co

u u

EEtEf E
-E ; ; c i eE
aE
;
al
r t ; ? * S t ; S * S* rF s? ?FF

s a * s

i ;i ?.ai, i;*:?
;"l E
:-i$
f **E

*:'riif;5i!gi,l*gia
.,i;iiu:;a
;i;1*Eii.

- u ; 6 : : r ? ,riE
i *r,s: rstH + *3=
i F::tu
srEilE*3j iF$,'=n$
; Fg*FisssE
i
f
f Fi5 E3:!*Sg5;i i

Si

1S

-:

f,-

Z ;E i S A
i

.J

.J

q
" i
a
6
^ ?
g
x

,.r r

<

S
N
+

:?
-:

-S-s

-o

' '^

-?"

-qS

:
c

d
5

gl*

ijjijj

E-j.'69
.F;:9.4

.
s

d
*

-o
q

o
N

Y.E3 s':i

$-,
o r

rirl
j

o X
i . *
9 P
;: d

'

i
F'

s
-$
|

o
D

r \

o
o
o
a
"i
-il^

H H

<

&

I
P - :
d
q

V : x
a v\a
=
<
-

S - O ? i
N c t r
N
:
:

.Y |- R
/
S
S 1x ^ . ;^ \ i
d
<
b d
1? h \ c r - - ' l

.$419:>tt

J
d

o
6

=
'

: J

-.

d
E

o
d
<

bo

o
E
;

bD

'

,-.-E'Il*;.i
i$;t*5*$i=;srg
SoJ-s
s * d i E i n; A;
.r- ! x,.i:

i g o f ^ 8 : . E E : g ; , - - - 4 f t - 1: r s
Eyu;;dE gF*-3;;EEs=l;lEl

:.F J.; d::TR;R:

tfqrs
jj

N
6

c
!

'i;

- d

- r -

:
':

|s :
E

N . .

: 1

a'J99P
.Y .Y

'lFltJ

!e Fp
E

u9

ci i

gi ": i

b si35F'E $ E$ s A s F r

oz.: oL,

6 ' ^
$IEsx.ggi+
:
^ lr,i,.-Eqgt'EEE
^ F " . * : i > F . E Ee - f iF9 ; 33 -. x\ : oX '?i ' - -1i E: - F io _y ?1; 3 o*
H : F o i ^ : J E ' ^

1
h

E g $ Ei -; ,i- "-;; 3* t = t; =d .sFi r EI ; ! ?g s

utuE

-E$Egfgg
g
;
?
A
i
a
s'
!
f
a
$E

.9

3;t -Ef
q

: ;
N

i E
N ;
".F

*3
h

ci'E
s
.l3 "' @
l:i^

. l E E l - ? i .l i1f o1 ?r
gr t}
;S * i { 5 , E

* & ' ; Y s . F e E . i SI g f " o S r i

i 3 ; q ! : i : i " > s { b r i , * dF A i ; g t $ E i; e H g i - - r l

:* q

;iiig

:
" g?
{
Jt
?: if'^r; f

E:
i Ts r d *F r r xs* ? r t ss ;gS e f F

E E . . . i H

a
iri

i =gaii":i - i i = E
gi irg p; : a l r

:
*

E
a
.
:
r
;
;
g
=
+
7
7
:
;
*
a
r
g
;
c
r
e
i
:;rqr i
; ; i l r- gE ; i t q ^ ; E e , ; : & g r i . " E !
r E {- . * ; E

rE;
r
S : ; i F-; { * = rs :! a r aI E r: E =
E :Fil i - i
F
:;
;
:
H
;

a
E
E
g
?
F gEEl . I TgE; EE g i I; : f E . Ii; : aEE .F: EE:E
E;[ F
; FF; T=uI I ; E E F
E

?-i-

? (o

?oE E

;ls

Eg;

?; xo

{ i * * i : i c , e i n ! c :R r . i i

,! - ;A

* Es' jEiEsE *EE .s E i ' E . E

; Es E g E=E5 ;t ; ET ' i ;3 F
:- T- =: E
; sE
- s?
s v O i - ET=; L
2 :
S - S i

=r'P.

Eu . ; ig: { ; g ? * ; : !i = s:u; g i Bi ; : } c *
; *:a::qE;E3
Es i ; t t E i ; ; 1 s ; p - ? i q ; ;t :E9E- =
i iE
?
n aEiz>e
- Et F b i : i j Fi , r l E ; : =Ha z z* F : F E f r i EE E E
Fi E

EE"i
:
-F ;iEE
E;F--f'?;! e i; .gr tFe!!' f;g i 'il F :F; g EE'*sE E E ' ; E*
f

3.
;

jX x
3

S
i

I
&

;
:

:$ $ :sss?*

$"

;si

"it$

:.
+

: a i g * " sg: el

E : l

,;

E
[ *3; 5! ir $ l q g $

-{
z= ^ - : s s

^u

r s e ] * = , i ; g l E i *;: t f ? ! - q t u ;! " t ? ; ; ; S ? E + s
! l" E
?eJ};r;;F**$
F q:s;*
! t A Ei i E EE; ; ;i s s g !- 6 = +

I
i

* i

E sc'r ?

$ [ i

: E i

rs

j
:

i
e

a ; * *- * i a

s : . {

-t p;

:E !I

E; E t i; r ; i { s iF g a ; s g " ; $; r= rE; t E i ; t * ! .*: ej <e sui

I q J Eq F . {l } = d + : ss s F " ]f E
)- .E z- E
) .-2E2i,i: zFr+. zl ii F
. z:z: .H;;.;.:i '. ft EEEt A
A ' . : ' r ! * S SI E t
& dg S

$*

; s . t ; e i i $li:.;.
Sl
p i l : * ; * 5 i f i ; S F sesTSarE
t ,r ;i ; * g E f i 3 ;*$' ! $

:
^

i
o

E-!
:-'
3 -} :-l rl *.,'$*. +
rqe:

$ i l e e n Ee c

= u i : ' * i i t ::f 5
F i ; ifsr $ ; i i E ;r*gc=i ;iil t s ; 'g;5gsjjgggEgg
!$:ig$ss;,gjgggg!g9g*gstjs:
;f
s
5
=

S;

, si : E rT{ rri l s; = f ;$i 5

! ,?* E i

*i
$gE

. q t * =i ts
i*l ti
s
t
:
i
E
s S : ; E r ? ri * E i iE 5 -e i E 3 o
E$ u i " i + i i

N !

i - " j

j j

' T . -e r . i *

>

T p i : - i a ci Ea l f i f

i; 5E;i gF"=E[;[FE"|
;i ieEit*'t9r'l:i$ii" E !o

$ i
; $

?$
u si
Ee {{

{ s s r r E r $ s eE; is1-4F p i t . f i
-$f
rFiEf
FtS5s
Erti;liur?E
:u*?-igi3gt
rgitEf
$

$
.
3i=

; q t - c e : : :" 6 - . t =

t5iiif'HsE
=iii*,t;*i;'iii
ls
tE
l--t;,1i
;!,Ei,;;
4 F t ; E i g

.. * *: : n.*r.i:.+:; iiy

.=

>>

: s g ; g Et = a a a -E=i r ; i j ' t I E ! f E ; f
f
Fa F E . i c r c
:{ iI E
+ igi : r E '=E* ! FEa Ei E! 3 *i E g E
: E
: :i ? :e+? * fi+E; : ; pPl s*E:s

= E a A = = E E E ZE E - i : j - = ' 5 : - =r : ' e E . !a - . b . u E ji : . E ; a ; !
^ EB

)i

; ', E

i y
, uu = -*g
!g ie [ $l-.;is:f;;B
{ *i, ; ;
i i E i gb

g r ; * - ! ; ; A = f i * s $ t i* t gu *

E . aT r i

;tiiiitEl.is
F$
rg*
E*;a;i=
f;,i.
ssu.$IuiEf

l"e

'rr
r :

(o if;

.p i

? fi !

-^: 3 g g gr Ea;-3.=
r :ai 's; ;: i ; j i : ; t-giij
sir; t;-;
EEsiE
$
r

s-rFFF'=
gs
gs
FF=
F
=
;
i
i
35
f$
g

g -

Ei. i i
gg
ig.ff'f$=gu
+
q
;i,,f
;g
flf_
s-f

=
'
E

E
n

ia eR -o-

SB

$
v

n I*

:i * f:E!gtl ' g . s " i r : E ; . F : : *! 5? ';*gi : r q

:
.
a
6
: p , ;i ;t :i *: : H:
$
t
:
=
s
+

E
;
r
!
*
E
i
:
g
;
:
g
g

i
;
:
8
.
.
$
g
+
t
:*;F
"i E
:gr[ ;
=
p e eE
i i fi s Frt{ g E i : ! E s ! 5 ;e:g: E
E
a
E
:x
E
; a faiaE
. rg
ro
- ;o
E =Et E F F EHTF g
E F " * E ? * * t . E E : *$
aE
* ;;- 8 6 g

d, :
J'g .5'

*
i3 i
.
^F
$g Ee ${ ^T is
E ; gE bs ;i $i-fl:
_3
i
:E !=.
q
e
?
E
*
'
q
$
E e f i F - * e Ei * ; t i E f . F ?
e E E s "eS
E
ii fp ;:
: p
. f g. a
- - i ? r; .l E; F] q? 1t *ss*Ei T"HE^ s3 E5*e ;HI *:rE6 -i EsgE; i?sXsF s { Ft {?! : l E i C A s
Ee i " F ' s i E

r
ei

?, i

E * ;E *:

'e

- ' F :: :, : E
@

:T

s i : " E f E; ? ; e d : t ? E ; i : - t r t E ? t

i;

sl

! !E
1
! i: " ; ' g S i E i
ii
i : EE;eE" ks c s E
E "=x
s a: s-! E
e
p s1ieE
- ; [ E- xf - t ; i t t =t ' E; + F ! E a
; rE
i
gSEiq+=
=
E
t
:
:
; Ab"FE^i '*Ia, 'F $ 'uFi H
HErr yE f bt;sf Cg F { * EE t f ; fH 1" Ec ^. a- ^b
E
ii^s^$i^s^:^EF^E
^ i " * f , : :t ' i " F I f
"F"qfA

! : s E -:

;sE-r
{i : .;
;-tuE;.-=,i
*A;u;*;-

" : ! - E :g
Ei i u i y s E ; i + 1 f ti:+: s i q { $ F
i i - * B _:,;*

i l aE;EgEFES
l i ; ; sst; ! =i#f
,=:E5SISF*;*;3iiggi;E
Ea * ; F
? r ;H,ug F
=qi ? = :; i! It ; i z i i { [ ' *E
i ; : '5E;
; a5553

F
=

:{

; E

!. g* ,{

Er
lgu+ gS

i! q i

qg

$ g

tg i
S s*esE? g :E

;;sgi*s

? E E { i ; 6 " " ti

q :::
s :
; A
qsi,*:ei==i:at
scgf
*: ;il;;:-tgfit:i
?u=
! =

i9 3 ; 4 ' : : ; ; E i
EE i ;E e c ; g
r , q] E E ; ; E " "q{ g _F5iE
g:;;
g : E ] F E 3 J r, =

3i *

f
+

r,

:
csj

-s

{ *

ql:

g E !*;sE. -^ r ; s ;

i i ; t ' = a ? ;t . * i - } =E - g * * ; E E * E F E i ; ' *

i"$ 6 *s,

;s

9,f
Ee
; .g
5g
E "=f E * i E A ? E.3E?TAE
r" E=*E8" e;;EEE g E i E **?EfIEE gE
#Ee EEE3E;F
i5

s
*i

r ":

= S'i5

T q s i: ; i

Isir+:a=ii
fii:?is!arigiiii:
F;?sEFEgiE
:

F
V

: A [ : H s

*:

te
?s*sg ; *i $ l ?"qE;=[ g e85xE=: E
s s EEE? s : 3
z $BE
EE;E!x;*; ;*: *EjEs:jEjEe
FiFE
i Eer a i ; E
E E il
E E E S S S4f t

?,

* ; ? ? ! , s ef E t

fic

-^o

'^e

3
-

;
d

qi

s{ *=}

i r r g %* $ : E ; o . ; . : r i 5 ; ; g
*;;";qj:;a;uEn"[;*?=']l:i'iiE?g
; i ? i . 3 E 6:i * : er E + t * t i i A i i i _! q! * ;i i E

,rs;?r-,,?=iE
Eiii,-$iE's:'
ii;g;.
?*r:;ii?i;!;iii
iiu;E
r*
:gE
Hl.i;-ii=Ti-lE;i
;
:
e
;
3
;

A
a
i
5
3
;,qtii;ss;t;ia;i=iEe;;;3Zz*
Et;!5
i

:r

ss a s: < I "Z Vz : l t ? + Fl e ; l g gX; f r {1 6z z! ; ii r Eg: t ; E! I

; ; t : ; i E g* i :=E. ;Ei EE i; i ; r y : t {< e : ;
E i E :$ ;Er + a :* . t ' - zj E
3

E ' te: g6Ai ;+.' g

friiE
EYi e. lEge :eie;EEs F 'EKB
-E/-u, du. $ 5 E t E = a g
a=Er E
^?ST
i'Y
il {aEEtt

;
-e s

i E .l o{ -- il il ,r $
E
g
$.sig
isa
*{;ui$
ig=
**: ,*i[;a,-;i;;f

;irfr.;f

:E
$E E

E-?qtiE;;E

;
q

'

5s

'sT

e;e '^5
sF

; r E $ $gsg $
i.Et;}:E'si
sqT;;*x.";;:=;l

?
+

c-irglu;g*i$H5;t3ttt
u
r?iiE*gi
g
' E - H i i =E
gE
r cf ,i ; 3 cEaE; ! * i t n t
: gsi E i
e
r $: i;E: i.s$sui F
s
F
e
?
E
A
F
E
*
a
g
g
s

:
a
*
E

i
g
3
r
E
B
3
g
a
g
g
?

i
a

_as$

i; qis;xii A;ci;
i; i uiqi i;: I*5iii fgg,_;:EE
r
Et
*E':t
iE
u*tgF
:lg:E+tEE*E$,*Eiu*;?'
esE
s

9 ' * A ;; e = si n

';ai{ s

[? i =..r*;

e;E {

I ;

*E!i
tEEE
HEEi c i d E , 6t f r r i " i l g 8 . EoEFH E E
Et
F Ft r! 8 .! -a! d
Fr-iFF Ftrtr
tr{:FF Fi
F Fi:FF FiiF{

G,

;; -;
:i s
Esg" q r i * , ,

g
; 7 e " ; - r y : s ^ * l: .EE ;; 1
e ? u g r s l t ee!? _ l E ;;;=
l
s
l
g
;
f
i
t
;
E
e
i
=
e
r
*
E

E!F : q s ! =
s
"
'
$
g
.
a
r *dE
a e ;QFh1; ir ea :, ei " i
} ; Ee . E
t 5E:ia::

{ : ; , E : 5 r . * Eg : F

[; rE'Eirigi E
*iiA*i!g
lEi+Eits*
:c::+3,sti
lEFE.;

EEEEEE

a ; ; i - * ,

e s

E ;

r-?s
+ * tELxixi E
x x=* * t5i Ei rEz-i 'E; ;s- E i E x E; .; 3; i* :-E- ';ei EE E E r xu4.,-Ea4 a+
aEa

6 : {

* { g 1 ga ! - g; l i a ?i i i ?

it :i: ts.'i
- = ? -; E E - 7 t r ; * ? $ = q : " 3 3 * :t F
: l ; ; . q" - ! a : * : q T S :- , a = - 1 ' * t ; t f i tg?t - ! i l
*

E;qi
r y i ; E; = f : E E i iF; f- : " ; ; ; t ; i i ' r t ;Er , ei ;* E ; e =

; a i i : 1 ?EEEE: ui f*air 5
! .If ?E- ; -i6 g
i-$: t
'E
; ixiE
E
F ; i EEr ? E E
- d ?l- = = 6 s 3 . s . s . ! : . !
E.!
a e:ArE"s
s Ea
EE E
e E E EE - ku , , E E E E s ; , ; - ; g = F A F F 3 3 " i -

;;

o
2:

F'z

@^
b

EE-. i=

2
g

B5

.= =

P=

'i

.5f

.E.s

:: '=

.tE

.s {t

i1t :{
it t; r=-:
ef
rq rr* ts
+E Fg
=7* i t e E cs : E : e ?

i l f ; g r g i g * Es c
z z t t e t ; : ; s * i +* g

s !" *i' ;* tn^;i ;l E

; :Fs[ E i q i
A
;
5 ? ; E E l Z ! : {* i?* igts* +r :s:, e r
s- ;ee?:

; E f! ! j F { ; [ : f j,i i i

TE
RE
o,

:i

?rp

t-

iS

s! { ;

; E:usrf E: !i ?i fi s { E

5 :sIj{t;iilrEE?;g:

3.8
;

=sEa
; $ + ^, ?r +y Ei :^

E rE :
i E r S i t ; : - " - - E r;Ep i {- :r $

Ys ,o
f E P ! + l + , 3 5 * o t r = : , ^ a fE , ; i
. $
E : i t I E: ; ; ; : u H i ; g : ; + t * r E 9s R 9E
a % d i = , . ' E l t i * E s e E E a Z e * ! iE: q
Ei ;*
- b i i B ; - ! d = : g E t i r S u * : = : { $ E gE { E : q

e i ! { ;s c! FE f :i g t * g gs:st i!f a E E
;

$
s
6

s.

\
gE
;

i
il

'. E
; ' ;"

E - i 4 ;

+
-

'-;lE
;

E : E E ; , i

r - gs !e^! to r E l
f s
I

g i!_+E
i ! q : Fg : ; ? i *

: " 3 q !t ; = i c i = l ; i i i s g
i E t t q * r t i , j t = : = + . 8E * e g

E s E E F; E 8 r a t u S 5 = * t i g g =
Ig SSS

E
b

:!

3q

j'"i

>

c
-#E ii s ii E
F
"
^
i
i
!
s
:
F
:
E
i
l
p
k
:ti5i.i fiZEi
E: E
= s I r- ol Ei i+d . IE E
EaiZ - E
rc*= .; : {. : i oEo E^ r- i- l E *
s . ;: arE
x a-ec
<
co

H 3'