Towards a political anthropology in the work of Gilles Deleuze: From a critique of psychoanalysis to the superiority of Anglo-American literature

Rockwell Franklin Clancy, Purdue University

Abstract

My dissertation argues for the existence of a "political anthropology" in the work of Gilles Deleuze. However, this perspective is by no means an obvious one. Thus, my project is based on a certain way of approaching Deleuze's thought. I began by investigating two recurring themes in Deleuze's work: his critique of psychoanalysis and claim Anglo-American literature is superior to French and German literature. Precisely these lines of inquiry led me to a "political anthropology" in the thought of Deleuze. His critique of psychoanalysis and praise for Anglo-American bear on different conceptions of human nature, as well as the respective understandings of political activity they support. I argue this constitutes the most fundamental strength of Deleuze's thought, the major contemporary significance of his work. This becomes evident by examining the influence of the English writer D.H. Lawrence on Deleuze. On almost every occasion Deleuze criticizes psychoanalysis or praises Anglo-American literature, he refers to Lawrence's Fantasia of the Unconscious and Studies in Classic American Literature. Deleuze can only thus be fully understood through Lawrence. Lawrence's critique of psychoanalysis and praise for classic American literature revolve around conceptions of human nature. Exploring these accounts and tracing Lawrence's commitments brings to light the philosophical anthropology implicit in the work of Deleuze, as well as its political implications. On the one hand, both psychoanalysis and Franco-Germanic literature suppose a conception of human nature where the mind is given priority over the body, individuals are conceived on the model of self-subsistent substances, community is conceived as a collection of substances, and the basis of relations between individuals and community are common goals and mutual aspirations—such that consensus represents the highest goal of political activity. On the other hand, central to schizoanalysis and "Anglo-American literature" is a philosophical anthropology where the mind is not given priority over the body, individuals are conceived as unique sets of relations—what Spinoza calls "bodies"—community is conceived as wider, further-reaching sets of relations than individuals, and the basis of relations between individuals and community is sympathy—such that the goal of political activity consists in the production of shared thoughts, perceptions, and feelings. A framework such as this—where one's political commitments are tethered to a conception of human nature—diverges sharply from the mainstream of contemporary political philosophy. Refraining from making strong claims regarding the nature of the good life, morality, etc., based on robust conceptions of personhood, is indicative of an attempted neutrality in contemporary political thought. Tied to the liberal tradition, as an ideal this neutrality nonetheless arises from and is based on an implicit account of human nature, one similar to that criticized by Deleuze in psychoanalysis and Franco-Germanic literature. Insofar as increasing social and political polarity characterizes the contemporary situation, the account of human nature on which this ideal is based seems thoroughly misguided. Hence, Deleuze's work can be understood as contributing to the project of a political anthropology, versus the mainstream of contemporary political thought. The fact this contribution takes shape in terms of Lawrence's thought on psychoanalysis and classic American literature is significant. On these issues Lawrence is conservative, bizarrely so when considered in relation to Deleuze. In terms of psychoanalysis, social and familial relations, Lawrence defends thoroughly traditional gender roles. Worse still, with respect to both psychoanalysis and classic American literature, his emphasis on the body and the importance of strong communal relations seems indicative of proto-national socialist sympathies. Rather than becoming embarrassed by or dismissing these tendencies in Lawrence, the merit of Deleuze's political anthropological project consists in taking these seriously, considering what is plausible in these seemingly antiquated lines of thought. When taken up by Deleuze, the merit of Lawrence's thought consists in making sense of the strong contemporary backlash against neutrality with respect to claims regarding the nature of human existence. This is precisely because of the conservative lines of thought that permeate Lawrence's work. Only by engaging in these lines of thought can one hope to combat them, understanding the allure of sexism, nationalism, fundamentalism, etc.—all forms of conservatism in terms of which the backlash against liberalism develops. These should not be understood as deviations from universal norms on which liberal thought is based. Insofar as liberal ideals are themselves rooted in a conception of human nature, this backlash should be understood in terms of philosophical anthropology. In terms of their emphasis on the body and reconceptualization of individuality, community, and relations between the two, the thought of Lawrence and Deleuze makes sense of this tendency and these movements, pointing towards a political anthropology in terms of which they can be better understood and addressed. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Smith, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Philosophy|American literature|British and Irish literature|Psychology

COinS