{"id":1130,"date":"2024-07-02T03:30:57","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T18:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/?p=1130"},"modified":"2024-07-02T03:39:26","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T18:39:26","slug":"deleuze-marx-and-non-human-sex-an-immanent-ontology-shared-between-anti-oedipus-and-manuscripts-from-1844","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/?p=1130","title":{"rendered":"Deleuze, Marx and Non-human Sex: An Immanent Ontology Shared between Anti-Oedipus and Manuscripts from 1844"},"content":{"rendered":"

\uc774 \ub17c\ubb38\uc740 \uc874\uc2a4\ud649\ud0a8\uc2a4\ub300\ud559\uc5d0\uc11c \ubc1c\uac04\ud558\ub294 \ub3d9\ub8cc\uc2ec\uc0ac \uc800\ub110 Theory and Event 16(3)<\/a>, 2013\uc5d0 \ubc1c\ud45c\ud55c \uae00\uc774\ub2e4. \uac04\ub9cc\uc5d0 \ud559\uad50 \ub3c4\uc11c\uad00\uc744 \uac70\uccd0 \ud574\ub2f9 \ud398\uc774\uc9c0\uc5d0 \uac14\ub354\ub2c8 \uc774\ud0e4\ub799\uc774 \uae68\uc9c0\ub294 \ub4f1 \uc0c1\ud0dc\uc5d0 \ubb38\uc81c\uac00 \uc788\uc5b4 \uc774\uacf3\uc5d0 \uc6d0\ubb38\uc5d0 \ucd5c\ub300\ud55c \uac00\uae5d\uac8c \uc218\ub85d\ud55c\ub2e4. project muse<\/a>\ub97c \ud1b5\ud574 \uc811\uc18d\ud558\uba74 \ud3b8\uc9d1 \uc0c1\ud0dc\uac00 \uc88b\ub2e4.<\/p>\n

\uc774 \ub17c\ubb38\uc5d0 \uc5bd\ud78c \uc0ac\uc5f0\uc774 \uba87 \uac00\uc9c0 \uc788\ub2e4. \ub2e4\ub978 \uac74 \ub098\uc911\uc5d0 \ubc1d\ud788\uae30\ub85c \ud558\uc790. \uadf8\ub798\ub3c4 \u300a\ucc28\uc774\uc640 \ubc18\ubcf5\u300b\uc758 \uc601\uc5b4 \ubc88\uc5ed\uc790 \ud3f4 \ud398\uc774\ud2bc(Paul Patton)\uc774 \ub0b4 \ubc1c\ud45c\ub97c \ub4e3\uace0 \ucd94\ucc9c\ud574\uc11c \ucd9c\uac04\ud558\uac8c \ub418\uc5c8\ub2e4\ub294 \uc810\uc740 \uc5b8\uae09\ud574\ub3c4 \uc88b\uc73c\ub9ac\ub77c.<\/p>\n

\ub0b4\uac00 2012\ub144\uc5d0 \ud559\uc220\ub300\ud68c\uc5d0\uc11c \ucc98\uc74c \ubc1c\ud45c\ud558\uace0 2013\ub144\uc5d0 \uc800\ub110\uc5d0 \ucd9c\ud310\ud55c \uc774 \ub17c\ubb38\uc5d0\ub294 \uc694\uc998 \uc720\ud589\ud558\ub294 \uc774\ub978\ubc14 ‘\ube44\uc778\uac04\uc8fc\uc758 \uc874\uc7ac\ub860’\uc774 \uaf64 \uc0c1\uc138\ud788 \uac1c\uc9c4\ub418\uace0 \uc788\ub2e4. \ud559\uc790\ub85c\uc11c \ubc14\ub77c\uac74\ub300, \ubd80\ub514 \ube44\uad50\ud574 \ubcf4\uc558\uc73c\uba74 \ud55c\ub2e4. pdf \ucd9c\ub825\ubcf8\uc740 \uc5ec\uae30<\/a>\ub85c.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n

Deleuze, Marx and Non-human Sex: An Immanent Ontology Shared between\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Manuscripts from 1844<\/em>1<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
\n
1.\u00a0In this paper, I use the following editions and abbreviations. Gilles Deleuze & F\u00e9lix Guattari (1972\/3),\u00a0Anti-\u0152dipe<\/em>, Minuit (AO) with French\/English (with \u2018e\u2019) pages. Karl Marx (1844),\u00a0The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts from 1844<\/em>\u00a0(M) with German-original page in MEGA II-2\/MEW Bd. 40. Karl Marx (1845),\u00a0Theses on Feuerbach<\/em>\u00a0(TF) with thesis number in MEW Bd. 3 but not from Engels\u2019 correction. Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels (1845\/6),\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>\u00a0(DI) with German-original page in MARX-ENGELS-JAHRBUCH 2003 in preparation for the publication of MEGA II-2\/MEW Bd. 3. All translations are modified or are my own.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/div>\n

Until now, many have wrongly considered Deleuze\u2019s concepts of the unconscious and desire as\u00a0human<\/em>, and have postulated\u00a0humanity<\/em>\u00a0as a-historically given. I show (1) the ontological nature of the unconscious and desire in Deleuze; and (2) the affinity between the thought of young Marx and that of Deleuze. In the last instance, Marxian socialist man is a Deleuzian schizophrenic and Marxian process of natural production is a Deleuzian schizophrenia. The non-human ground of humanity, or the historical materialist foundation of humanity, is the starting point of the new ethico-political philosophy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

While witnessing the upheaval and collapse that was May \u201968, Deleuze comes to an important realization: any political philosophy ignorant of or contradictory to ontology (and in particular the ontological nature of the unconscious and desire) is destined to end in failure. Up to the present, almost all political philosophies have wrongly considered the unconscious and desire as\u00a0human<\/em>, and have furthermore postulated humanity as a-historically given. Deleuze will depart from this tradition, insofar as he understands humanity as an ensemble of natural and historical determinations that are in need of critique. As such, the following question should be posed and answered: What is \u2018humanity\u2019 in our epoch, in the capitalist regime? To address this question, Deleuze follows the strategy of Spinoza. In\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>, as in Spinoza\u2019s\u00a0Ethics<\/em>, Deleuze outlines the\u00a0ontological nature<\/em>\u00a0of the Universe, including nature and man, and then constructs an ethical and political philosophy consistent with this\u00a0ontological order<\/em>, via an analysis of the historical formations and types of society. Consequently, the non-human ground of humanity, or more exactly, the historical materialist foundation of humanity, could be said to be the starting point for the project of\u00a0Capitalism and Schizophrenia<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Many scholars, including Eugene Holland, Ian Buchanan and Guillaume Silbertin-Blanc,2<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0misunderstand Deleuze\u2019s concepts of the unconscious and desire as\u00a0human<\/em>. They cannot overcome the psychoanalytic image of thought of the\u00a0human<\/em>\u00a0unconscious or\u00a0psycho<\/em>-logy. Consequently, they do not reach the ontological region of the unconscious, and fail to notice the evidence of its non-human character. In this paper, I will show: (1) the ontological nature of the unconscious and desire in Deleuze\u2019s\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>\u00a0(the meaning of non-human sex or production, the non-representational nature of the unconscious and desire, the unconscious as an orphan or auto-production of the unconscious), and (2) the affinity between the thought of young Marx and that of Deleuze (an immanent ontology shared between the\u00a01844 Manuscripts<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>).<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0Eugene W. Holland,\u00a0Deleuze and Guattari\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0Anti-Oedipus:\u00a0Introduction to schizoanalysis<\/em>\u00a0(Routledge, 1999); Ian Buchanan,\u00a0Deleuze and Guattari\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0Anti-Oedipus:\u00a0A Reader\u2019s Guide<\/em>\u00a0(Continuum, 2008); Guillaume Silbertin-Blanc,\u00a0Deleuze et<\/em>\u00a0l\u2019Anti-\u0152dipe :\u00a0La production du d\u00e9sir<\/em>, (P.U.F., 2010).<\/span><\/h5>\n

1. Non-human Sex as a Non-anthropomorphic Representation of Sex<\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s start from several phrases in\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>\u00a0that contrast Marx with Freud:<\/p>\n

Marx says something even more mysterious: that the true difference is not the difference between the two sexes, but the difference between the human sex and the \u2018non-human\u2019 sex. It is clearly not a question of animals, nor of animal sexuality. Something quite different is involved.<\/p>\n

(AO 350\/294e)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In\u00a0The Critique of Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Right<\/em>, Marx argues that Hegel\u2019s conception of difference is not real but formal, and that the real difference, or essential difference, is not \u2018North and South\u2019 nor \u2018Man and Woman\u2019 but \u2018pole and non-pole\u2019 and \u2018human sex and non-human sex\u2019. According to Marx, \u201cTrue real<\/em>\u00a0extremes would be pole and non-pole, human sex and non-human sex.\u201d3<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0K. Marx (1843),\u00a0Kritik des Hegelschen Staatsrechts<\/em>, MEW Bd. 1, 293.<\/span><\/h5>\n

In\u00a0Discours, Figure<\/em>,4<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard aptly comments on the \u201cnon-human sex\u201d of Marx that it belongs to the order of positing (Stellung<\/em>) whereas the \u201chuman sex\u201d belongs to the order of representation and consciousness. In other words, the human sexes (male\/female) are of conceptual and \u2018analytic\u2019 difference (in the Kantian sense), while the non-human sex is of essential, positing and \u2018synthetic\u2019 difference, which is the only\u00a0real<\/em>\u00a0difference or opposition. Thus the latter plays a role of positing the former. As a result, the non-human sex refers to \u201cwhat is not thought in the thinking\u201d (139), and it is on the order of desire and the unconscious.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard (1971),\u00a0Discours, Figure<\/em>, Klincksieck, 138-141.<\/span><\/h5>\n

In line with Lyotard, Deleuze interprets the \u201cnon-human\u201d as \u201cnon-anthropomorphic,\u201d on which Xenophanes of Colophon once commented (DK 211B15), and which here has the same meaning as\u00a0non-anthropo-morpho-centric<\/em>. As with the notion of animal painters, human beings imagine and represent everything like themselves, or in accordance with their own forms. But human beings are only the results of material universal processes. Deleuze criticizes Freud and psychoanalysis for the reason that they are prisoners of this anthropomorphic imagination and representation in thinking about sexuality and the unconscious. As he says with Guattari: \u201cDesiring-machines are the non-human sex. (\u2026) In a few sentences Marx, who is nonetheless so miserly and reticent where sexuality is concerned, exploded something that will hold Freud and all of psychoanalysis forever captive:\u00a0the anthropomorphic representation of sex<\/em>\u00a0!\u201d (AO 350\/294e).<\/p>\n

The anthropomorphic representation of sex always regards sex, sexuality and (re-)production as somewhat like human or animal sex. It is an image of thought which presupposes that sex or production proceeds from parents to a child, which is in effect expressed as \u201ca parental production\u201d (AO 21\/15e). However, at the level of the unconscious, such an image is not true at all, because the unconscious is another name for the universe in Deleuze. On a side note, I also wish to point out that this line of thinking on sex and production derives especially from young Marx as well.<\/p>\n

Marx, and in particular the young Marx, also thinks of sex and production as non-human or non-anthropomorphic.5<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0In the discussion of atheism in the 3rd\u00a0Manuscripts<\/em>, Marx says the following concerning the question of the \u2018creation\u2019 of man and nature: \u201cThe fact that nature and man exist by themselves is\u00a0incomprehensible<\/em>\u00a0to the popular consciousness, because it contradicts everything\u00a0tangible<\/em>\u00a0in practical life\u201d (M 273\/545). Marx then, without explanation, directly goes on to say, \u201cgeneratio aequivoca<\/em>\u00a0is the only practical refutation of the theory of creation.\u201d What is meant by\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>\u00a0(spontaneous generation) and why is it the only practical refutation of the theory of creation?6<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0I will answer this question in the next section. The problem here is\u00a0the creation of the universe<\/em>\u00a0which includes both nature and man. For Marx, nature and man are not two distinct terms, because \u201cman<\/em>\u00a0is immediately\u00a0natural being<\/em>\u201d (M 296\/578). Though Marx doesn\u2019t put it this way, what matters here is the Creation of Nature or of the Universe as a whole material Being. Marx later confirms (in the Preface) that he deals with \u201cnot only anthropological determinations in the proper sense, but truly essential (natural)\u00a0ontological<\/em>\u00a0affirmations\u201d (M 318\/562).<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0The years 1844\/5 remind us of the famous thesis of Louis Althusser and his collaborators, called the \u201cepistemological break\u201d, which insists on the radical difference or break between the young Marx in\u00a0Manuscripts from 1844<\/em>, which should represent the ideological stage, and the mature Marx after\u00a0Theses on Feuerbach<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>\u00a0which only is\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0science. But Deleuze disregards the \u201cbreak\u201d thesis and follows the interpretation of G\u00e9rard Granel (1969), \u201cL\u2019ontologie marxiste de 1844 et la question de la \u2018coupure\u2019\u201d, in\u00a0l’Endurance de la pens\u00e9e<\/em>, Plon, to whom he refers only once (AO 10, footnote 4) but by whom he is deeply influenced. In Granel\u2019s article, a\u00a0continuity<\/em>\u00a0is revealed through the comparison of the texts from 1844 and 1845\/6. According to him, \u201cthe critique of atheism, and its positive expression: the\u00a0essential<\/em>\u00a0unity of man and nature, not only would not be re-negated in the first text of so-called \u2018break\u2019 (The German Ideology<\/em>), but rather would constitute the starting point and the terrain itself of the text\u201d(271-2). In effect, after a long consideration of this problem, he concludes that \u201cthis ontology which is achieved in the\u00a0Manuscripts<\/em>\u00a0remains something acquired in\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>\u201d (296). At least three phrases in\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>\u00a0clearly testify to the assertion (294-5).<\/span><\/h5>\n
6.\u00a0Moreover, the expression\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>\u00a0reappears in\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>, where Marx says: \u201cOf course, in all this the priority of external nature remains sustained, and all this has no application to the original (urspr\u00fcglichen) men engendered by\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>; but this distinction has meaning only insofar as man is considered to be distinct from nature\u201d(DI 10\/44). Insofar as\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>\u00a0is given as a common basis of an argument in the two texts, the continuity between the two is further sustained, but the meaning of the phrase remains unclear.<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n

Confronting the problem of the Creation of the universe, Marx presents to us our common ways of thinking, i.e. our anthropomorphic representation of sex or production. According to him, we are so accustomed to thinking of sex or production on the parental model (\u201cYou have been begotten by your father and your mother\u201d), so we ask \u201cWho begot my father? Who his grandfather? etc.\u201d But such questions only keep sight of the movement which leads to \u201cthe\u00a0endless<\/em>\u00a0progression\u201d or infinite regression. In reality, such questions call for God as the Creator of the universe, the First Cause or the Immobile Mover. Instead of questioning in such a way, Marx proposes: \u201cYou must also hold on to the\u00a0circular movement<\/em>\u00a0sensibly perceptible in that progress by which man repeats himself in procreation,\u00a0man<\/em>\u00a0thus always remaining the subject\u201d (M 273\/545). But how can we break off from the linear movement which necessarily implies infinite regression, so as to leap to the circular movement at a stroke? And why does man always remain the subject? To the first question, Marx responds: the question \u201cwho begot the first man, and nature as a whole?\u201d is itself \u201ca product of abstraction,\u201d for such a question is wrongly posed, and \u201cyou postulate man and nature as\u00a0non-existent<\/em>, and yet you want me to prove them to you as\u00a0existing<\/em>\u201d (M 274\/545). And yet\u00a0already<\/em>, you, the questioner,\u00a0are and exist<\/em>, and you as a part of nature\u00a0are and exist<\/em>\u00a0! Therefore postulating oneself and nature as non-existent is only an abstraction or nonsense. That being the case, we must hold on to the circular movement, because the fact that man begets man is sensibly perceptible as well. As Granel suggests (278-9), the circular movement which constitutes \u201cthe human\u00a0genus<\/em>\u00a0(Gattung)\u201d7<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0is perfectly compatible with the linear movement of \u201chuman individuals.\u201d In effect, this is one of the meanings of \u201cman as generic being\u201d; hence \u201chis\u00a0birth<\/em>\u00a0through himself\u201d (M 274\/546). However, in that movement, why does man remain the subject?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

2. Toward an Immanent Ontology: Subverting Subject-Object Dichotomy or Representational Perspective<\/h3>\n

Now I will examine Marx\u2019s texts concerning the problem of subject in more depth. In modern Western philosophy, one encounters many difficulties in thinking of the thing or object\u00a0per se<\/em>. But since the 19th century, German philosophers such as Marx and Nietzsche begin to elaborate on the term \u201cGegenstand\u201d in contrast with \u201cObjekt,\u201d both of which are generally translated into \u201cobject\u201d in English, in order to overcome the representational understanding of the object. This is because representation always presupposes a distinction between object (remaining always the same outside of man) and subject (trying to reach and know it). But the real problem is grasping the very\u00a0relation<\/em>\u00a0between them. The problem is thus shifted from epistemology to ontology.<\/p>\n

Here we can gain some useful insights from Marx toward understanding the non-representational nature of being. For instance, Marx clearly distinguishes\u00a0Gegenstand<\/em>\u00a0from\u00a0Objekt<\/em>\u00a0in his 1st\u00a0Theses<\/em>. \u201cThe chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (\u2026) is that the thing (Gegenstand<\/em>), the reality (Wirklichkeit<\/em>), sensible world (Sinnlichkeit<\/em>) is grasped only in the form of the\u00a0object<\/em>\u00a0(Objekt)\u00a0or of contemplation<\/em>, but not as\u00a0sensibly human activity, practice<\/em>\u00a0(Praxis), not subjectively\u201d (TF 1). Here Marx sharply contrasts\u00a0Gegenstand<\/em>\u00a0with\u00a0Objekt<\/em>.\u00a0Objekt<\/em>\u00a0always presupposes the object-subject relation, i.e. \u201cthe form of object,\u201d and is a term always and necessarily coupled with the knowing or\u00a0contemplating<\/em>\u00a0subject. In contrast\u00a0Gegenstand<\/em>\u00a0is itself the reality and sensible world from the viewpoint of the thing itself, and also the sensibly human activity or practice from the viewpoint of the acting subject, who itself is also a thing. One of the main points of this assertion is that\u00a0Gegenstand<\/em>\u00a0should be\u00a0grasped<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0conceived<\/em>\u00a0not only\u00a0in the form of<\/em>\u00a0Objekt (as a representation in the process of knowing), but also and more importantly,\u00a0as<\/em>\u00a0a sensibly human activity, practice, etc.<\/p>\n

But here \u201chuman\u201d is not a pre-existing individual but \u201can ensemble of social relations in its reality\u201d (TF 6). So the sensibly human activity\u00a0or<\/em>\u00a0practice cannot be reduced to the mere conscious activity of the individual, but must be grasped as an ensemble\u00a0or<\/em>\u00a0assemblage under socio-historically determined conditions. In this respect, \u201csubject\u201d (in the expression \u201csubjectively\u201d) must also be understood not as a\u00a0knowing<\/em>\u00a0subject but as a\u00a0practicing<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0acting<\/em>\u00a0subject. And we must not understand the term \u201cpractice\u201d in the\u00a0humanist<\/em>\u00a0sense involving consciousness, intention, or free will, for practice is also an ontological term, or, more exactly, a\u00a0generic activity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In effect, Marx has rejected the conception of a pure subject as we ordinarily think of it. According to Marx, man is an objective being: \u201cA non-objective being is a\u00a0non-being<\/em>\u00a0(Unwesen)\u201d (M 296\/578). Here \u201cobjective\u201d means\u00a0object-positing through sense organs or sensibility<\/em>. Man as an objective being, \u201che only creates or posits objects, because he is posited by objects, because at bottom he is\u00a0nature<\/em>. In the act of positing, therefore, this objective being does not fall from his \u2018pure activity\u2019 into\u00a0a creating<\/em>\u00a0of the\u00a0object<\/em>, but his\u00a0objective<\/em>\u00a0product only confirms his\u00a0objective<\/em>\u00a0activity, his activity as the activity of an objective, natural being\u201d (M 295\/577). So a subject never creates an object from his pure activity, i.e.\u00a0from his conscious, free will alone<\/em>. Rather, it is\u00a0only afterwards<\/em>\u00a0that an objective product confirms the objective activity of a subject.8<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

8.\u00a0In addition, Marx apparently affirms\u00a0the priority of production to consciousness<\/em>\u00a0in\u00a0The German Ideology<\/em>. 1) \u201cConsciousness is a social\u00a0product<\/em>\u201d (DI 16\/30-1, my emphasis); 2) \u201cThe consciousness (Das Bewu\u00dftsein<\/em>) can never be anything else than\u00a0the conscious bein<\/em>g (das bewu\u00dfte Sein<\/em>) and the being of men is their real life-process\u201d (DI 115\/26, my emphasis); 3) \u201cConsciousness does not determine life, but life determines consciousness\u201d (DI 116\/27). From these examples, one can see how much Marx emphasizes production in comparison with consciousness. The same perspective already appears in\u00a0A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Right. Introduction<\/em>\u00a0(1844), where the relation of the social conditions to the consciousness, e.g. to religion, is described: \u201cBut\u00a0man<\/em>\u00a0is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is\u00a0the world of man<\/em>, state, society. This state, this society produces the religion, an\u00a0inverted consciousness of the world<\/em>\u00a0(verkehrtes Weltbewu\u00dftsein), because they are an\u00a0inverted world<\/em>\u00a0(verkehrte Welt)\u201d (MEW Bd. 1, 378).<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/div>\n

In another vein, the expression\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>\u00a0is not unfamiliar to us, since philosophers endeavoring to construct an immanent ontology always reach a similar concept. A typical case is Spinoza, who says: \u201cBy cause of itself (causa sui<\/em>) I understand that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.\u201d9<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0That something is a cause of itself seems like a paradox, or rather a contradiction, for we ordinarily think that if something exists, it is an effect of precedent cause. Thus the definition of\u00a0causa sui<\/em>\u00a0can only be understood as an affirmation that something exists\u00a0per se<\/em>\u00a0without any precedent cause and is not produced by any other thing. If something exists and\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0exist in its essence or in its nature, (and this existence is real in what is here and now as Marx says,) it should be understood as\u00a0causa sui<\/em>. If so, only one thing comes under this title. It is Nature, the Universe as a whole, Being as a whole. Only this is not produced by another. In the beginning, the universe\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0exists<\/em>. Therefore the definition of\u00a0causa sui<\/em>\u00a0is the first principle of an\u00a0immanent<\/em>\u00a0ontology. As far as the universe is concerned, there is no distinction between subject and object; so the identity of the two is self-evident. So\u00a0natura<\/em>\u00a0is simultaneously\u00a0natura naturans<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0natura naturata<\/em>\u00a0in Spinoza. This is why Deleuze also says: \u201cProducing, a product, an identity of product and of producing\u201d (AO 13\/7e). It is not an anthropomorphic representation of sex or production. Rather, it is a\u00a0presentation<\/em>\u00a0or a somewhat scientific description of the universe, not a representation which must always reintroduce the subject-object dichotomy.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0Benedict de Spinoza (1677),\u00a0Ethics<\/em>, from Latin and English translation by E. M. Curley, Part I Definition 1.<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n

Only by following this line of interpretation can the other enigmatic expressions of Marx be clearly understood as well. (1) \u201cThe fact that nature and man exist by themselves (Das Durchsichselbstsein der Nature und d[es] Menschen<\/em>)\u201d (which literally means \u201cthe being-through-themselves\u201d) and (2) \u201chis\u00a0birth<\/em>\u00a0through himself\u201d (sein\u00a0Geburt<\/em>\u00a0durch sich selbst) (which is similar to\u00a0generatio aequivoca<\/em>) in the 3rd\u00a0Manuscripts<\/em>. What is meant by these expressions? What does \u201cself\u201d refer to here? In the final analysis, I would claim, \u201cself\u201d is Nature itself. Only when interpreted as such will all of Marx\u2019s texts be coherently fully comprehensible.<\/p>\n

The first meaning of non-human sex or production is that we should think of it\u00a0universally<\/em>\u00a0in the sense of the\u00a0universe<\/em>. It is the process of universal production, of universal becoming. In\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>, the term \u201cuniversal\u201d is understood in the sense of the universe, the whole world. For example, universal history is world-history or the history of the universe, and universal production (or to produce universally) is the production of the world or universe as a whole. So Deleuze says: \u201cThe schizophrenia is the\u00a0universe<\/em>\u00a0of productive and reproductive desiring-machines, the\u00a0universal<\/em>\u00a0primary production as \u2018essential reality of man and nature\u2019\u201d (AO 11\/5e, my emphasis). On the modern usage of the term \u201cuniversal,\u201d Granel also testifies that it means \u201cthe totality of objectivity\u201d (309). This is one of the reasons why Marx says: \u201cMan produces universally\u201d (M 241\/517).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

3. Auto-production of the Unconscious or the Unconscious as an Orphan<\/h3>\n

Now let us consider some Deleuzian concepts closely related with the unconscious as non-human production of the universe. Above all, we must look at some enigmatic phrases from Deleuze, which can only be understood in the context of immanent ontology. Here is a schizophrenic\u2019s claim: \u201cYes, I have been my father and I have been my son<\/em>. \u2018I, Antonin Artaud, am my son, my father, my mother, and myself\u2019\u201d (AO 21\/15e). But is it only a madman\u2019s delirium, because I cannot be my father and my son and me at the same time? This claim of Artaud\u2019s is in reality a voice of the universe present in the person as a schizophrenic. According to Deleuze, a schizophrenic is no more a patient in a hospital but a man in its natural state, a\u00a0generic being<\/em>; schizophrenia is not a mental disease but a process of production of the universe. A schizophrenic is in \u201ca time before the man-nature dichotomy (\u2026) has been laid down. He does not live nature as nature, but as a process of production. There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a process that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together. Producing-machines, desiring-machines everywhere, schizophrenic machines, all of generic life\u201d (AO 8\/9e).<\/p>\n

For Deleuze, the unconscious is an orphan and acts as an auto-production. \u201cWithin the order of production (\u2026) everything is (\u2026) with (\u2026) uses of syntheses that feed the auto-production of the unconscious \u2014 the unconscious-as-orphan\u201d (AO 120\/100e).10<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0In this phrase one can notice at least three points: (1) the unconscious is an orphan, and therefore has no parents; (2) it produces itself as an auto-production, so it is in a circular movement; and most importantly, (3) it is within the order of production, or within the ontological order of the universe, not within the psychological order. These three points are comprehensible in virtue of our preceding considerations. Then, what is meant by desire? The term \u201cdesire\u201d first appears in the following: \u201cProduction as process (\u2026) forms a cycle which is related to desire qua immanent principle\u201d (AO 10-11\/5). Thus desire should be understood as\u00a0an immanent principle of the cycle of production of the unconscious<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

10.\u00a0There are many similar passages in\u00a0Anti-Oedipus<\/em>. I enumerate only some of them here for the purpose of further study: \u201cit is always the unconscious that produces itself in a cyclical orphan movement, a cycle of destiny where it always remains a subject\u201d (345\/290e); \u201call the transitions that (\u2026) constitute the cycle whereby the unconscious, remaining a subject, produces and reproduces itself\u201d (345\/290-1e); \u201cthe unconscious is an orphan\u201d (57\/49e); \u201can auto-production of the unconscious\u201d (64\/54e); \u201cthe unconscious that remains an orphan\u201d (93\/78e); \u201cthose regions of the orphan unconscious \u2014 indeed \u2018beyond all law\u2019 \u2014 where the problem of Oedipus can no longer even be raised\u201d (97\/81-2e); \u201cthe splendid affirmation of the orphan- and producer-unconscious\u201d (356\/299e), etc.<\/span><\/h5>\n
\n

Now one can understand the question of God. On this issue, Deleuze and Marx\u2019s arguments proceed in a similar manner. Concluding the argument on atheism, Marx says:<\/p>\n

Since the\u00a0essential reality<\/em>\u00a0of man and nature has become practically and sensibly evident, (\u2026) so the question about an\u00a0alien<\/em>\u00a0being, about a being beyond nature and man \u2013 a question which implies the admission of the unreality of nature and of man \u2013 has become practically impossible.\u00a0Atheism<\/em>, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a\u00a0negation of God<\/em>, and postulates\u00a0the existence of man<\/em>\u00a0through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer needs such a mediation. It proceeds from the\u00a0theoretically and practically sensible consciousness<\/em>\u00a0of man and of nature as the\u00a0essence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

(M 274-5\/546)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here, the socialist man is like a Deleuzian schizophrenic, who does not need any mediation by God as an unreality. We can consult Deleuze\u2019s text with a similar approach, which surprisingly repeats Marx\u2019s argument. \u201cHe [a schizophrenic] no longer needs the mediation of myth, he no longer needs to go by way of this mediation \u2014 the negation of the existence of God \u2014 since he has attained those regions of an auto-production of the unconscious where the unconscious is no less atheist than orphan \u2014 immediately atheist, immediately orphan\u201d (AO 68\/58e).<\/p>\n

In the following splendid summary, there is nothing psychological and humanist, but only an immanent ontology of the unconscious and desire:<\/p>\n

When we relate desire to Oedipus, we are condemned to ignore the productive nature of desire, (\u2026) we relate it to independent existences \u2014 the father, the mother, the begetters. (\u2026) The question of the father is like that of God. (\u2026) A circular movement by which the unconscious, always remaining subject, produces and reproduces itself. The unconscious does not follow the paths of a generation progressing (or regressing) from one body to another: your father, your father’s father, and so on. The organized body is the object of reproduction by generation; it is not its subject. The sole subject of reproduction is the unconscious itself, which holds to the circular form of production. Sexuality is not a means in the service of generation; rather, the generation of bodies is in the service of sexuality as an auto-production of the unconscious. (\u2026) The unconscious has always been an orphan \u2014 that is, it has engendered itself in the identity of nature and man, of the world and man. The question of the father, the question of God, is what has become impossible, a matter of indifference.<\/p>\n

(AO 128\/107-8e)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here we see also the circular point of view that we find in Marx. Why is the cycle maintained in Marx and Deleuze? Why not the regression to the first cause?<\/p>\n

The point of view of the cycle alone is\u00a0categorical and absolute<\/em>, because it attains production as the subject of reproduction, which is to say it attains the process of auto-production of the unconscious. (\u2026) It is certainly not sexuality that is in the service of generation, but progressive or regressive generation that is in the service of sexuality as a cyclical movement by which the unconscious, always remaining \u2018subject\u2019, reproduces itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

(AO 327-8\/277-8e)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is, without a circular point of view, transcendence must be introduced; therefore only the circular movement, the auto-production, is categorical and absolute. To put it another way: \u201cThere is only one kind of production, the production of the real. And doubtless we can express this identity in two different ways, even though these two ways together constitute the auto-production of the unconscious as a cycle\u201d (AO 40\/32-3). To affirm that there is\u00a0only one kind<\/em>\u00a0of production is also to prevent the intervention of transcendence. If we double the reality, if we abandon the univocity of being, then the transcendent world beyond this world must be settled and immanence be got rid of.<\/p>\n

The unconscious is an orphan<\/em>, and produces itself within the identity of nature and man. The auto-production of the unconscious suddenly became evident (\u2026) when the socialist thinker [i.e. Marx] discovered the unity of man and nature within the process of production, and when the cycle discovers its independence from an indefinite parental regression. To quote Artaud once again: \u2018I got no \/ papa-mummy\u2019.<\/p>\n

(AO 57\/49e)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n

4. Unfinished Conclusion<\/h3>\n

As we can see, Deleuze\u2019s unconscious is mainly a Universe as a whole world, and desire is its immanent principle. We can understand some concepts such as \u201cmicro\u201d or \u201cmolecular\u201d and notorious \u201cn<\/em>\u00a0sexes\u201d along these lines.<\/p>\n

Everywhere a microscopic trans-sexuality. (\u2026) Making love is not just becoming as one, or even two, but becoming as a hundred thousand. Desiring-machines or the non-human sex: not one or even two sexes, but\u00a0n<\/em>\u00a0sexes. Schizoanalysis is the variable analysis of the\u00a0n<\/em>\u00a0sexes in a subject, beyond the anthropomorphic representation. (\u2026) The schizoanalytic slogan of the desiring-revolution will be first of all: to each its own sexes.<\/p>\n

(AO 352\/295-6e)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For Deleuze, \u201cmicro\u201d or \u201cmolecular\u201d has nothing to do with size, but rather a perspective by which the unconscious and desire are grasped, according to the non-human sex or production. And the concept of \u201cn<\/em>\u00a0sexes\u201d is also related to the same perspective. They emphasize the non-anthropomorphic process of production, and provide the criteria with which one evaluates the \u201cmachinic indices\u201d (AO 378\/316eff.) in the given phenomena. The task of schizoanalysis is surely to examine whether one\u2019s way of thinking of sex or production is humanist or not. It also testifies how far one reaches the\u00a0materialist humanity<\/em>\u00a0and the schizophrenic as socialist.<\/p>\n

Finally, let us consider some political implications of Deleuzian immanent ontology concerning the unconscious and desire. When one tries to engage in ethical or political activities, one must follow the ontological (natural, universal) order, for if not, one cannot practice appropriately. In effect, Man as a part of nature, or as an ensemble of social relations, cannot go against or beyond the natural order. That is why I suggest above the possibility of re-thinking concepts such as \u201cpractice\u201d and \u201crevolution.\u201d Though we cannot propose any revolutionary programs, we can at least gain some guidelines for our activities. Such guidelines will include appropriate conceptions of sex, sexuality, desire, and production, and the immanent ontological understanding of non-human sex, auto-production of the unconscious and the unconscious as an orphan. The next task we must undertake is to elucidate the relation of ontology and society, and that of society and the human psyche.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Additional Information<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
ISSN\u00a01092-311X<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Print ISSN\u00a02572-6633<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Launched on MUSE\u00a02013-08-28<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Open Access\u00a0No<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\uc774 \ub17c\ubb38\uc740 \uc874\uc2a4\ud649\ud0a8\uc2a4\ub300\ud559\uc5d0\uc11c \ubc1c\uac04\ud558\ub294 \ub3d9\ub8cc\uc2ec\uc0ac \uc800\ub110 Theory and Event 16(3), 2013\uc5d0 \ubc1c\ud45c\ud55c \uae00\uc774\ub2e4. \uac04\ub9cc\uc5d0 \ud559\uad50 \ub3c4\uc11c\uad00\uc744 \uac70\uccd0 \ud574\ub2f9 \ud398\uc774\uc9c0\uc5d0 \uac14\ub354\ub2c8 \uc774\ud0e4\ub799\uc774 \uae68\uc9c0\ub294 \ub4f1 \uc0c1\ud0dc\uc5d0 \ubb38\uc81c\uac00 \uc788\uc5b4 \uc774\uacf3\uc5d0 \uc6d0\ubb38\uc5d0 \ucd5c\ub300\ud55c \uac00\uae5d\uac8c \uc218\ub85d\ud55c\ub2e4. project muse\ub97c \ud1b5\ud574 \uc811\uc18d\ud558\uba74 \ud3b8\uc9d1 \uc0c1\ud0dc\uac00 \uc88b\ub2e4. \uc774 \ub17c\ubb38\uc5d0 \uc5bd\ud78c \uc0ac\uc5f0\uc774 \uba87 \uac00\uc9c0 \uc788\ub2e4. \ub2e4\ub978 \uac74 \ub098\uc911\uc5d0 \ubc1d\ud788\uae30\ub85c \ud558\uc790. \uadf8\ub798\ub3c4 \u300a\ucc28\uc774\uc640 \ubc18\ubcf5\u300b\uc758 \uc601\uc5b4 \ubc88\uc5ed\uc790 …
Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[34,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free","category-deleuze"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1130","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1130"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1130\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1138,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1130\/revisions\/1138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armdown.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}