Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

#TheoryThursday: "Do not become enamored of power." - Michel Foucault

Posted 1 month ago on June 23, 2014, 10:09 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: Power, TheoryThursday

“Preface” to Anti-Oedipus by Michel Foucault

During the years 1945-1965 (I am referring to Europe), there was a certain way of thinking correctly, a certain style of political discourse, a certain ethics of the intellectual. One had to be on familiar terms with Marx, not let one’s dreams stray too far from Freud. And one had to treat sign-systems — the signifier — with the greatest respect. These were the three requirements that made the strange occupation of writing and speaking a measure of truth about oneself and one’s time acceptable.

Then came the five brief, impassioned, jubilant, enigmatic years. At the gates of our world, there was Vietnam, of course, and the first major blow to the powers that be. But here, inside our walls, what exactly was taking place? An amalgam of revolutionary and antirepressive politics? A war fought on two fronts: against social exploitation and psychic repression? A surge of libido modulated by the class struggle? Perhaps. At any rate, it is this familiar, dualistic interpretation that has laid claim to the events of those years. The dream that cast its spell, between the First World War and fascism, over the dreamiest parts of Europe — the Germany of Wilhelm Reich, and the France of the surrealists — had returned and set fire to reality itself: Marx and Freud in the same incandescent light.

But is that really what happened? Had the utopian project of the thirties been resumed, this time on the scale of historical practice? Or was there, on the contrary, a movement toward political struggles that no longer conformed to the model that Marxist tradition had prescribed? Toward an experience and a technology of desire that were no longer Freudian. It is true that the old banners were raised, but the combat shifted and spread into new zones.

Anti-Oedipus shows us first of all how much ground has been covered. But it does much more than that. It wastes no time in discrediting the old idols. even though it does have a great deal of fun with Freud. Most important, it motivates us to go further.

It would be a mistake to read Anti-Oedipus as the new theoretical reference (you know, that much-heralded theory that finally encompasses everything, that finally totalizes and reassures, the one we are told we “need so badly” in our age of dispersion and specialization where “hope” is lacking). One must not look for a “philosophy” amid the extraordinary profusion of new notions and surprise concepts: Anti-Oedipus is not a flashy Hegel. I think that Anti-Oedipus can best be read as an “art,” in the sense that is conveyed by the term “erotic art,” for example. Informed by the seemingly abstract notions of muliplicities, flows, arrangements, and connections, the analysis of the relationship of desire to reality and to the capitalist “machine” yields answers to concrete questions. Questions that are less concerned with why this or that than with how to proceed. How does one introduce desire into thought, into discourse, into action? How can and must desire deploy its forces within the political domain and grow more intense in the process of overturning the established order? Ars erotica, ars theoretica, ars politica.

Whence the three adversaries confronted by Anti-Oedipus. Three adversaries who do not have the same strength, who represent varying degrees of danger, and whom the book combats in different ways:

• The political ascetics, the sad militant, the terrorists of theory, those who would preserve the pure order of politics and political discourse. Bureaucrats of the revolution and civil servants of Truth.

• The poor technicians of desire — psychoanalysts and semiologists of every sign and symptom — who would subjugate the multiplicity of desire to the twofold law of structure and lack.

• Last but not least, the major enemy, the strategic adversary is fascism (whereas Anti-Oedipus‘ opposition to the others is more of a tactical engagement). And not only historical fascism, the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini — which was able to mobilize and use the desire of the masses so effectively — but also the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.

I would say that Anti-Oedipus (may its authors forgive me) is a book of ethics, the first book of ethics to be written in France in quite a long time (perhaps that explains why its success was not limited to a particular “readership”: being anti-oedipal has become a life style, a way of thinking and living). How does one keep from being fascist, even (especially) when one believes oneself to be a revolutionary militant? How do we rid our speech and our acts, our hearts and our pleasures, of fascism? How do we ferret out the fascism that is ingrained in our behavior? The Christian moralists sought out the traces of the flesh lodged deep within the soul. Deleuze and Guattari, for their part, pursue the slightest traces of fascism in the body.

Paying a modest tribute to Saint Francis de Sales, one might say that Anti-Oedipus is an Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life.

This art of living counter to all forms of fascism, whether already present or impending, carries with it a certain number of essential principles which I would summarize as follows if I were to make this great book into a manual or guide for everyday life:

• Free political action from all unitary and totalizing paranoia.

• Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization.

• Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law, limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple, difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic.

• Do not think that one has to be sad in order to be militant, even though the thing one is fighting is abominable. It is the connection of desire to reality (and not its retreat into the forms of representation) that possesses revolutionary force.

• Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth; nor political action to discredit, as mere speculation, a line of thought. Use political practice as an intensifier of thought, and analysis as a multiplier of the forms and domains for the intervention of political action.

• Do not demand of politics that it restore the “rights” of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to “de-individualize” by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations. The group must not be the organic bond uniting hierarchized individuals, but a constant generator of de-individualization.

• Do not become enamored of power.

It could even be said that Deleuze and Guattari care so little for power that they have tried to neutralize the effects of power linked to their own discourse. Hence the games and snares scattered throughout the book, rendering its translation a feat of real prowess. But thse are not the familiar traps of rhetoric; the latter work to sway the reader without his being aware of the manipulation, and ultimately win him over against his will. The traps of Anti-Oedipus are those of humor: so many invitations to let oneself be put out, to take one’s leave of the text and slam the door shut. The book often leads one to believe it is all fun and games, when something essential is taking place, something of extreme seriousness: the tracking down of all varieties of fascism, from the enormous ones that surround and crush us to the petty ones that constitute the tyrannical bitterness of our everday lives.

15 Comments

15 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by shadz66 (18072) 1 month ago

''We are at the end of an era in which lies can be used to steal from the public and the commons. We are at the beginning of an era in which truth in public service can restore us all to a state of grace." from

From the first link : ''The open source revolution is inevitable, simply because the demise of the system presided over by the 1% cannot be stopped – and because the alternatives to reclaiming the commons are too dismal to contemplate. We have no choice but to step up.''

respice, adspice, prospice ...

[-] 3 points by Axis116 (57) 1 month ago

Restating what I initially wrote, I understand the "individual" as the product of a perception, which begins at birth, when one finds one's "self" in the sensory-sensual "reality" of being in a specific place in the space/time environment. Personhood is then is overlaid with "events" which slowly builds up a sense of personal history and being an "individual" with a "personality", etc.

The "individual" is certainly not the product of political power, though the sensation of "individuality" can certainly be influenced by, and influence said political power. The sensation and perception of being an "individual" is far more an organic reality than a political reality, though by adulthood we may find them so intertwined as to be indistinguishable.

I do not "demand of politics that it restore the 'rights' of the individual." I will claim that power myself. Sorry, but, “de-individualize” just sounds like a very strange conception to me. Are not groups made up of individuals? If not, what is a "group" a group of, anyway? Not all groups are hierarchical.

Do not use thought to guide political practice? Use politics to guide thought? Absolutely NOT! No way am I going to make revolution going ass-backwards.

Beyond all this theory, this individual says, RESIST, OCCUPY, REVOLT!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

"Do not become enamored of power."

I'm thinking - in a boiled down expression sort of way = Do not assume the position ( kneeling with head placed into a hole in the ground ) while in the presence of those in a position of power. Examples Like The Donald Chump or The President ( any ) currently the Obummer or Derek's Jeeter ( cheater? ) or the Colon's Powel or or or even such as the Oprah or or or the Ellen Generous or or or DKAtoday ( OK OK OK not in a position of power - just sayin is all ) or or or

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 weeks ago

Please read my post again!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

Sorry - but - why? It was tough slogging the 1st time through - and I feel that I did fine with my interpretation ( my thoughts on the subject ).

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 weeks ago

As my first language is not English therefore I may not be sometimes able to accurately express my ideas.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

And - So . . . . what? Why the invitation to re-read your post? The reasoning for Your request is unclear.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 days ago

As my biggest enemy is the state of India which may change my comment any time they like.Actually just now it took me some time to open this website then it was written that logging in is forbidden--India can do anything!

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (1161) from Waterville, NY 2 days ago

I think the Corporations have seized Total Control over the Gov't in India ,have they not? They can now turn India into a Formidable Weapon to be used to spread Death and Destruction.Fascists,when they are able to control a Small Country can do almost Unlimited Harm.India is No Small Country.That begs the Question-how may the Corporations use Mighty India to pursue profit while destroying Anything that stands in their way? It hardly even bears thinking about..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 days ago

I'm sorry - yes India as well as the USA is fucked-up - is the USA as bad yet? - no I think not - but it sure seems to be trying real hard to get there. Sorry - but what has this got to do with the origination of this conversation that we have had? I am still wondering about your original request that I re-read your post.

[-] 2 points by Revolutionary (263) 3 weeks ago

I think power is enforced in different ways one of them being money(in vogue/contemporary) & economic system with the belief THAT ANY GOOD DEED CAN BE APPRECIATED/REWARDED BY ONLY FEW (--THOSE FEW WHO HAVE GOT THE MONEY) THUS AMOUNTS TO NOT DOING THE ESSENTIAL GOOD DEED WHICH ONE MUST DO OWING TO MORAL OBLIGATIONS (for example showing the way or saving a drowning person).The present socio-political-economic system does not encourage people to help those in need.Human being mostly are in need of information and knowledge which must be free and is especially in need of a new governance system.To encourage people help each other there must be a system for rewarding those who do social work,casual or organised.Power as it exists shall become obsolete if at least we stop using the present type of money( and governance) and there is a system to reward every good deed which neither impossible nor difficult to develop.

[-] 1 points by Axis116 (57) 1 month ago

You lost me when reading, "The individual is the product of power." hmmm...

Not so sure about that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34899) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

[ EDIT ] If I were to hazard a guess - The individual being a product of power - is - due to the environment that that individual grows up in - the environment shaped by power.

EDIT -> Would I be the same individual as I am today - if I had been born and raised in the Ivory Coast or Berlin or Sweden or Chad or or or

Or would I be fundamentally different in many aspects of my thinking and so in my actions as well.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (263) 2 weeks ago

Power really shapes the majority of the people in the form the power wants only few escape it by chance or otherwise.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (497) 4 weeks ago

"• Do not demand of politics that it restore the “rights” of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to “de-individualize” by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations. The group must not be the organic bond uniting hierarchized individuals, but a constant generator of de-individualization."

Any way the author could expand on this?