b_edited.png)
Liviu Poenaru
You, father, who perhaps innocently, are complicit with the fathers,
who want to free themselves from their sons
by seeing them die in wars waged
in the places of the Alibi, Far East of history.
Here, for once,
the father does not want the son's death but his love.
It is he who becomes the son, and in the son, the young man, perhaps sees the father,
and loves him, does not want to kill him but to be killed by him,
does not want to possess him but to be possessed by him.
Yes, but this father is a bourgeois of our world,
he has a factory at the foot of the Briance mountains (joyous in the sky
and lost in the sky):
how can he accept the consequences of this dream, long forgotten?
He will accept them by denaturing them. Knowing and not knowing,
he will let himself be caught by the naked son on the mother.
He will seek pretexts to strike the son,
and thus to be struck.
He will attack the son
to draw him to himself,
to be the center of his life.
Pier Paolo Pasolini (1994), Who am I? (p. 42).
That the father exerts a strong influence on the nuclear family, supported by loving and ambivalent feelings, is irrefutable. The same applies to the mother. These influences affect the child's psycho-sexual and drive development. However, in the Freudian perspective, the father (and his phallic monism) embodies a particular power as he represents the law and its prohibitions (the mother being a priori devoid of adequate psychic means to respect this law), which produce castration and submission. The formation of the Superego, an instance of the personality that would be the heir to the Oedipus complex and whose role is akin to that of a judge and censor of the psychic apparatus, depends on him. The integration of the difference between the sexes and generations (and their corollary of socio-political-economic hierarchies that produce subjectivities and determine the criteria of inclusion-exclusion within the war of classes, sexes, races, etc.) also depends on him. The castration complex resulting from castration anxiety is a crucial factor—as an organizing element of the difference between the sexes—in the Oedipus complex. In psychoanalysis, the latter refers, according to Laplanche and Pontalis (1997), to an:
"Organized set of loving and hostile desires that the child feels towards his parents. In its so-called positive form, the complex is presented as in the story of Oedipus Rex: desire for the death of the same-sex rival and sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent. In its negative form, conversely: love for the same-sex parent and jealous hatred for the opposite-sex parent. According to Freud, the Oedipus complex is experienced in its peak period between three and five years, during the phallic phase, its decline marking the entry into the latency period. It re-emerges at puberty and is overcome with more or less success in a particular type of object choice. The Oedipus complex plays a fundamental role in the structuring of the personality and in the orientation of human desire" (Laplanche, Pontalis, 1997, p. 79-80).
Problems
The refutability of these reductive, normative, and pathologizing assertions has been discussed in endless debates since Freud (1900) proposed his concept. Indeed, the Oedipus complex condenses very complex issues. Apart from the systematic refutation of its universality or even its existence (which I will not address due to space constraints), here are some other epistemological objections:
1. The empirical reality of the Oedipal configuration, its arbitrary nature, and its validation by scientific studies (Fisher, Greenberg, 1985; Borch-Jacobsen, 2002; Chatard, 2004). The term "validation" is not used here in Karl Popper's (1959) sense, which poses a significant epistemological trap for psychoanalysis, but in the sense of validation through qualitative methods in the human and social sciences (Poenaru, 2020), in which we could include psychoanalysis.
2. Its socio-political-economic promotion primarily in Freudian France (Turkle, 1982) as a norm for maintaining dominant patriarchal powers that determine the right classes, the right sexes, the right races in a vicious circle of the productivity of subjectivities.
3. The centrality of the castration complex (on which the psychic organization of the difference between the sexes would depend) has been at the heart of critiques from gender studies (Preciado, 2020). "The boy fears castration as the realization of a paternal threat in response to his sexual activities; this results in intense castration anxiety for him. For the girl, the absence of a penis is felt as an injury she seeks to deny, compensate for, or repair" (Laplanche, Pontalis, 1997, p. 74). By placing the penis at the heart of castration anxiety and the Oedipus complex, Freud (and psychoanalysis) clearly produce a phallocentric and patriarchal psychic model. This model is nevertheless functional as long as the environment and society initiate (priming effect) and condition the child and future adult based on these primary organizing elements. Bourlez (2018) invites psychoanalysts to reposition analytical praxis at the intersection of theory and politics. Also, in psychoanalysis, it is not mentioned that the son fears the economic and social demands of the father, who imposes his ideological commitments.
4. The biological avoidance of incest seems to demonstrate the fallacious nature of a complex supposedly organized by the incest taboo. The Westermarck effect (1934) posits the existence of a natural mechanism for avoiding incest (also evidenced in animals in ethology). Independent studies in humans (Talmon, 1972; Shepher, 1983) and primates (Paul, Kuester, 2004; Pusey, 1990; Albert, 1999) confirm this hypothesis. "Sexual reproduction between a parent and their adolescent or adult offspring is extremely rare in all species under natural conditions, and non-human species do not have culturally transmitted laws on the age of consent or incest taboos, generally thought to prevent such behavior in humans (...). Yet, to some extent, these same 'wild' animals, under certain captivity conditions, as well as domestic animals in yards, backyards, and pastures, often mate with their own adolescent or adult offspring" (Feierman, 1990, p. 9). This raises questions about the potential perversion of animal instincts by the socio-economic "captivity" and the constitution of the family cell as a disciplinary enterprise (Foucault, 1976; Alliez, Lazzarato, 2016) that destroys human nature.
5. The origin of neurosis not in the Oedipal dynamic but in the social dynamic of class struggle (class neurosis, De Gaulejac, 2016; economic neurosis, Poenaru, 2023) inseparable from capital accumulation, the social construction of gender (Chatard, 2004), and the resulting drive conflicts. From this perspective, psychoneurosis is not determined by sexuality but by the socio-economic rank that subjugates sexuality to its hierarchies based on capital, its production, and reproduction. It is then possible to postulate the existence of a neurotic domino game involving capital, class, sex, race, all articulated to the appearance strategies established by the bourgeoisie for production-consumption profit of the dominant classes. Consequently, this raises questions about the necessary and inevitable entanglement of sexuality with social, political, and economic dimensions.
6. Its schizophrenic nature (involving the denial of bio-psycho-socio-economic-political reality) in collusion with capitalist schizophrenia (Deleuze, Guattari, 1972) and biopower (Foucault, 1976), and their disciplinary actions on the body and sexuality (Foucault, 1975). This aspect is another source of confusion and cognitive dissonance inherent in the psychoanalytic discipline (Poenaru, 2019). In "Oedipus without Complex," Vernant (1967) calls psychoanalysts "new Tiresias" (the blind seer from the Oedipus myth) who attribute to themselves "a gift of double vision (...) to reach, beyond mythical or literary expressions, an invisible or profane truth" (p. 3). For Vernant, the Freudian demonstration "has all the apparent rigor of reasoning based on a vicious circle" (p. 4).
Epistemological confusion
This aggregation of issues associated with the undeniable empirical reality of parent-child love (inevitably tinged with erotism) and the socio-political-economic dimensions grafted onto it, maintains epistemological confusion. As suggested earlier, a multitude of early and historically evolving influences determine and condition psycho-sexual and drive development. Should we call this factorial complexity the "Oedipus complex"? Why use a myth that forces the entry of adult sexuality, incest, marriage, murder, blindness, and the hierarchy of sexes and generations onto the child's psychic scene? Should we talk about the economic blindness that leads to alienation? Why start with a theoretical transfer and a mutilating-castrating knowledge-power while the risk of incest, murder, or sexual relations for a baby or a three-year-old child is nil? Why project onto a baby the perversion of "captivity" in industrial society (Feierman, 1990) that denatures instincts and animality (and its genetic rejection of incest)? To prepare the child from birth for the future of machinic devices (Guattari, 1979)? What about psychic queersexuality (Poenaru, 2020), the differences, and the plurality of HLGBTIQ+++ genders? Why does not "overcoming" (necessarily) this normative complex mean being "immature" or even pathological? Why not call all this the "complex of captivity" within the social, political, economic, and cultural norms imposed by the dominant powers? Isn't castration primarily of socio-economic origin, generated by parents' fear that their offspring will be excluded from certain ranks that imply well-being?
The concept of a "captivity complex" is a way to describe the intricate interplay of psychological, social, economic, and political forces that shape individual and collective experiences. It attempts to encapsulate the multifaceted nature of human existence and the constraints imposed by various systems of power and control. The psychological impact of societal structures can be profound, influencing everything from self-esteem to cognitive development. For instance, societal expectations and pressures can lead to stress, anxiety, and depression. Family dynamics, cultural norms, and community interactions all contribute to shaping one's identity and behavior. Sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu (1980) have explored how social capital and cultural capital influence social mobility and access to resources.
Economic factors such as wealth distribution, job markets, and access to education and healthcare are central to this complex. Economists study how economic policies and systems create disparities and affect life chances (which can strongly influence the primary attitude of parents towards their offspring). Marx's theory of class struggle highlights the economic dimensions of social inequality and power dynamics. Political structures and ideologies govern how power is distributed and exercised (and injected into the human mind through propaganda, education, etc.). Michel Foucault's analysis of power and surveillance illustrates the political dimension's influence on individual freedom and societal norms.
The idea of a "captivity complex" suggests a state of being trapped within these intersecting forces. This notion considers how individuals navigate their lives amidst these constraints. This complex takes into account the multidimensionality of the influences that lead us to consider that people are often constrained by invisible but powerful systems that limit their agency and potential. Parents often fear that their children will be excluded from opportunities that guarantee a certain level of well-being. This fear drives them to enforce strict norms and expectations, which can limit a child's freedom and individuality while affecting the expression of sexuality.. Sociologist Annette Lareau's work (2011) on "concerted cultivation" versus "natural growth" illustrates how middle-class parents often micromanage their children's lives to ensure future success, while working-class parents tend to allow more natural development.
Economic instability and the need for financial security can conduct to restrictive behaviors. Parents might pressure their children to pursue "safe" careers rather than follow their passions or drives, leading to a form of socio-economic castration where individual desires are suppressed for economic survival or norms. Socio-economic disparities create environments where certain groups are systematically disadvantaged. This systemic inequality can be seen as a form of societal castration, where marginalized groups are deprived of the same opportunities and resources as more privileged groups.
Deleuze and Guattari (1972) believe that the more incest occupies the forefront, the more repression and its correlates, suppression and sublimation, will be based on supposed transcendent dictates of civilization. They analyze the double operation of civilizational manipulation vectored through the Oedipus complex:
"The Oedipus complex, oedipalization, is thus the fruit of the double operation. It is in one movement that repressive social production is replaced by the repressive family, and that the latter gives a displaced image of desiring production representing the repressed as incestuous familial drives. The relationship between the two productions is thus replaced by the family-drives relationship, in a diversion where all of psychoanalysis goes astray. And we see the interest of such an operation from the viewpoint of social production, which could not otherwise avert the power of revolt and revolution of desire. By holding up the distorting mirror of incest (hey, is that what you wanted?), desire is shamed, stupefied, put in a no-win situation, easily persuaded to renounce "itself" in the name of the higher interests of civilization (and if everyone did the same, if everyone married their mother, or kept their sister for themselves? there would be no differentiation or possible exchange...). One must act quickly and early. A little deep calumniated stream incest" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1972, p. 222-223).
Deleuze and Guattari introduce the concept of desiring-production, which they see as fundamental to human existence. In contrast to the psychoanalytic focus on the Oedipal triangle (father-mother-child), they argue that desire is not rooted in lack but in a productive force that permeates all social and economic systems. Alienation, from their perspective, arises when this productive desire is repressed or redirected by the structures of capitalism and the Oedipal framework, which impose artificial limits and norms on the flow of desire. They contend that capitalism perpetuates alienation by appropriating and exploiting desiring-production for profit. The capitalist system detaches individuals from their genuine desires and reconfigures them into roles and identities that serve the economic system. This creates a split between individuals and their desires, leading to a profound sense of alienation.
It is evident: societies (religious, colonial, capitalist) are obsessed with male domination, sexuality (perverted in this context according to feedback loops), captivity (the origin of consumption-production and its disciplinary enterprise), destructiveness, and murder inseparable from total war (Alliez, Lazzarato, 2016), accumulation, and commodity fetishism, bourgeoisie turned into a myth of elevation, non-knowledge (repression), and knowledge-power [as Wakefield (2023) reminds us with Foucault (1976)]. All these are part of a system with interdependent elements.
These socio-historically constructed and even naturalized obsessions are transmitted to children through education, the disciplinary society, and its codes (conscious and unconscious) injected through various channels that continuously produce new forms of sexuality (D’Udine, 1990; Domjan, 1990). Twenge (2017), to name just one author, notes the modification of young people's sexuality since the introduction of smartphones on the market. This demonstrates the ongoing interactions and co-constructions of sexuality, economics, and society. Speaking of Oedipus in the face of this complexity is both reductive and a participation in civilizational manipulation.
Wakefield: The Anti-Oedipus debate
The Anti-Oedipus debate proposed by the journal In Analysis is opened by J. C. Wakefield (2023), Professor at New York University and Silver School of Social Work. In his text "The Anti-Oedipus from the Perspective of the Philosophy of Science and Foucault's Knowledge-Power Perspectives," Wakefield first reminds us that numerous studies tend to demonstrate that the arguments used by Freud to support his theory are not solid and that, far from being a harmless pseudo-science, the theory of Oedipus constitutes an oppressive form of "knowledge-power" in the Foucauldian sense, reorganizing family relationships in a socio-syntonic but emotionally harmful manner. The Oedipal theory remains an entirely ad hoc, scientifically unconvincing position (Eagle, 2018) lacking new convincing evidence, while the psychoanalytic method has also been questioned by the failure of the seduction theory.
It is not a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wakefield acknowledges Freud as a central figure in the history of knowledge and a precursor of cognitive sciences, pointing to the existence and importance of unconscious mental representations, thereby bringing a new and relatively nuanced philosophy of mind. Freud replaces the dominant approach of "constitutional degeneration" with an infantile approach that attributes the etiology of diseases to early interactions with the affective environment, intrapsychic conflicts, and defense mechanisms generated by these contexts—primary "neuroticogenic" influences later demonstrated by neuroscience. Additionally, he founded talk therapy, a method that has proven effective in treating many mental disorders, particularly psychoneuroses, paving the way for psychotherapy practice outside asylums.
Inspired by the philosophy of science, Wakefield proposes a logical reconstruction, analysis, and evaluation of Freudian arguments from a neo-Foucauldian approach centered on how the acceptance of this theory has modified power relations within the family (the "knowledge-power" of the theory). Considering the Freudian arguments underlying the presentation of the Little Hans case demonstrates, for Wakefield, the creation of a sense of danger in the mother-son relationship mainly, leading to parent-child separation to protect the marital bed in the era of sexual and affective equal marriage, which was becoming widespread when Freud proposed his theory. The author shows that the theory of the Oedipus complex is both false and harmful, neuroticogenic, while constituting a form of countertransference or narcissistic fantasy of wish fulfillment applied to the clinic.
Oedipus as the primary form of economic captivity
With his analysis, Wakefield supports the hypothesis of socio-political determinants in imposing the Oedipus complex as a developmental reading, as well as the fundamentally dangerous nature of this epistemological error, which only reproduces control, denaturation, and surveillance of sexuality by knowledge-power. As suggested earlier, psychoneuroses can be conceived as primarily socio-economic-political, the results of biopower governing bodies, minds, and populations through prescriptions aimed at stabilizing and controlling the social body (Foucault, 1976) and the psychiatrization of perverse pleasures produced by the infernal vicious circle of the economic captivity of the living.
The psychiatrization of pleasures is included by Foucault among the four figures or strategic sets (of power and knowledge), along with: the hysterization of the woman's body, the pedagogization or surveillance of the child's sexuality, and the socialization of procreative behaviors. Foucault's strategic sets reveal how societal institutions exert control over individual desires and pleasures. By defining what is normal and abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable, these power structures alienate individuals from their authentic desires. This alienation occurs as people are compelled to conform to externally imposed norms, losing touch with their genuine selves. Individuals begin to self-regulate and police their own behaviors and desires according to the standards set by power structures. The pathologization of non-normative pleasures and behaviors creates social stigmas that alienate individuals who do not conform. People whose desires fall outside the accepted norms are often marginalized, experiencing a sense of otherness and exclusion from mainstream society. The socialization of procreative behaviors aligns with economic imperatives of population control and workforce management. Such pressures alienate individuals by subordinating their personal desires to the demands of the socio-economic system.
With the advent of industrial capitalism, discourses on sex are increasingly valued, rationalized, taken into a qualitative and quantitative management enterprise via the culture of confession that becomes the daily bread of psychoanalysis—the science of the subject that develops around sexuality damaged by the family cell subjected to biopower.
"The human sciences, the nascent social sciences, remarkably cover this function of verification apparatus of power. (...) Any power formation requiring knowledge, strategic power relations must stabilize both in power devices (disciplines, governmentality) and in knowledge (methods of observation, recording techniques, investigation, and research procedures...) to be able to 'govern' relatively stably and predictably behaviors" (Alliez, Lazzarato, 2016, p. 139).
In this context, it is about managing the productive captivity of subjectivities and mainly the dangers of perversion, the denaturation of animal nature by captivity (Feierman, 1990; D’Udine, 1990; Domjan, 1990). Shi et al. (2021) remind us that early childhood, particularly the first three years of life, is characterized by rapid and dynamic brain development, a critical development stage for an individual's social and emotional functions, as well as for disorders that may occur throughout life (Gilmore, Knickmeyer & Gao, 2018; Black et al., 2017). We suggest that if manipulations of the child's early environment (especially during critical periods) can modify sexual preferences and if sexual behavior can be modified to some extent by conditioning (even to inanimate objects), then the boomerang of body control, family, environment, activities, neuro-cognitive-behavioral and emotional complex would be exposing individuals and communities to perversions, neuroses, castrations, amputations, self-mutilations (a phenomenon increasingly widespread among young girls of cybercapitalism).
Wakefield notes the creation of a sense of danger in the mother-son relationship. It is therefore about protecting and controlling the marital bed and family structure to remain an early vector of productivity and consumption. The danger of captivity, perversion (diversion of instincts, depravity, disorder), is thus projected onto the child from birth, beginning a true hunt for perversion, the main threat and side effect of biopower, originating a feedback loop of pathogenic defenses induced by what we call the "captivity complex": repressions, denials, acting out, projections, projective identifications, isolations, etc. (well-known range in psychiatrization).
The feedback loop described, consisting of repressions, denials, acting out, projections, projective identifications, and isolations, indicates a pervasive and internalized form of control. These defense mechanisms are responses to the external pressures of biopower but also serve to reinforce internal alienation. Individuals become estranged from their authentic desires and emotions as they adopt these defensive behaviors to cope with societal expectations. Repression and denial are mechanisms that contribute to alienation by pushing true feelings, desires, and identities into the unconscious. This creates a split within the self, where the conscious mind is disconnected from the repressed aspects of one's identity, leading to a fragmented sense of self.
From this angle, pathology and pathologization, control and destruction, healing and predation are the two faces of the same coin of subjective training-destruction through total, fractal, transversal, macropolitical, micropolitical war ("by molecular engineering privileging the highest interactions"), "in-definite," infinite (like capital accumulation), and which is waged with-for-against populations (Alliez, Lazzarato, 2016). The psychological function is then a double function: a) reminder of conditioning through discipline and knowledge-power use and b) mission to repair the infinite, indiscernible, and repressed damage of total war.
But let's not forget that, with the advent of the cybercapitalist dictatorship, a new form of captivity is imposed on children (as well as adults): capture by screens immobilizing individuals in the fight-flight-freeze triad in the face of omnipresent real-virtual predators. This unprecedented configuration demonstrates the possibility of modifying a behavioral sequence that, in the animal kingdom, is used sequentially: fight or flee or freeze. Corporations and cybercapitalism engineers have thus managed to make the three options simultaneous in relations with screens (and their predators). This context modifies not only behaviors but also the family cell, as it leads to the increasing isolation and alienation of each family member on a screen.
Who benefits from the crime? We are witnessing, with this anthropological mutation induced by the digital pandemic, the apogee of conduct control (by governments, corporations, artificial intelligence) as well as the pathologization of populations via biopower (which destroys biodiversity). The carceral panopticon of scopic capitalism pulverizes the social body in the ubiquity of the Internet and "freedom of expression" to better lock it into addiction, control, surveillance, production of digital data, and consumption. The bipolarization is astonishing and pathologizing (as epidemiological data show).
Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex, as Wakefield reminds us, once confronted with the empirical reality we examine, is invalid. For it carries the same logic of healing perversion by perversion and fixation on an eternally captive sexuality of power. Wakefield cites Freud (1896):
"But the most important conclusion reached if an analysis is thus consistently pursued is this: whatever the case and the symptom taken as a starting point, we inevitably arrive at the realm of sexual experience" (Freud, 1896, p. 199).
Without a doubt, the problem is not inevitably arriving at sexuality, but rather with what tools, what interpretations, and what risks of reconsolidating the alienation in which it is embedded. Human sexuality may be a pretext, a vicious circle, a spiral, a danger, and a symptom of capitalism. The more we consider the plurality of factors and dynamics, the more we conclude that the Oedipus complex, as theorized by Freud and the main psychoanalytic theories, does not withstand the resulting refutations. It is both dangerous and ridiculous.
Wakefield also names another polarization generated by biopower: the centripetal force of the crusade against masturbation was historically corrected by the centrifugal force of the Oedipal theory, emphasizing the dangers of physical affection. The nuclear family is simultaneously transformed into a molecular family (united-disunited) where some bonds are preserved while members are systematically kept separate. As mentioned before, the peak of this separation-pulverization is reached with the dictatorship of screens. Parental control of screens has become a true intra-family war, also a source of union-disunion and paradoxes. It is no longer a question of separating the child from the parental dyad but of controlling the peak of fragmentation of family bonds, which also endangers the mother-father dyad. The law is no longer decided by nuclear family fathers but by corporate fathers who industrialize alienation. Does this reality show that the father of the nuclear family is only a vector of a higher power, himself subjected to the knowledge of biopower?
All this suggests that the goal of enterprises of control, surveillance, and scientific-machinic capture of subjectivities is economic and political and assumes the perversion of sexuality. Biopower is interested in what generates capital, not in family bonds, love, freedom, or human dignity. It is not humanistic values that interest the dominant classes and our "civilization". The day the total explosion of bonds and instincts represents the most exploitable and interesting gold mine for capitalism, we will know that the family configuration and government-domestication-monitoring of sexuality were only a historical experiment to generate profit under the guise of progress, security, and insurance.
They all suffered from capital, class, and appearance neurosis
If we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and admit, as Wakefield suggests, Freud's contributions to the knowledge of the unconscious, and if we maintain our intellectual honesty and independence from total war, we can use Freudian concepts as instruments of deconstruction and mentalization of the total capture of the individual and their libido in the machinic systems of current cybercapitalism—provided we do not fall into the dogmatic trap of psychoneurosis of an Oedipal nature.
Our parents have all been soldiers in the psychological, economic, social war. They were forcibly enlisted, like all of us. They have all been castrated, mutilated, amputated, traumatized to varying degrees by the denaturations of industrial, capitalist, cybercapitalist, normative, insidious, vicious, degrading, fractal, breaching societies, etc. They all suffered from capital, class, and appearance neurosis. The captivity complex, repressed by knowledge-power, civilization, and propaganda, remains a track to be analyzed with our patients, in relation to their development, the psycho-affective relationship with their parents, and their life context determined by perverse injunctions. The singularity of assemblies is, from this perspective, inseparable from captivity as an omnipresent environmental dictate.
The way captivity and its main corollary, capital and class neurosis, have been transmitted by each of them and reinforced by the new codes of total war is undoubtedly inscribed in the singularity and unconscious of each individual. This complex is undoubtedly mingled with feelings of love and hate (as in the Stockholm syndrome), and it has conditioned the sexuality, libido, affective and drive adjustments of the adult. For these reasons, it is difficult to reduce this bio-psycho-socio-economic complex and its inevitable "castrations" to the Oedipus complex, even though castration-mutilation anxiety of the self/Ego is rightly one of the weapons of total war that demands good soldiers and victims.
If there is a talk therapy (of psychoanalytic, dialectical, and critical orientation), it is essential to question the transgenerational denaturations of the captivity complex and psychoneuroses (or other pathologies) created by biopower, the extremely productive class war, and more broadly the increasingly indiscernible arsenal of total war. In this perspective, psychoanalysis is an opportunity for the individual to reconstruct their subjective enunciation while deconstructing parasites of their unconscious and reflexes. It is about decontextualizing to reinvest in other essential contexts of existence and liberating vital flows (libido) territorially-colonized by the laws of capitalism.
Deleuze and Guattari (1972) believe that Freud deterritorializes the psyche in an attempt to liberate internalized constraints of the outside world while reterritorializing libido on the terrain of the Oedipal drama, once again imprisoning subjectivity in the culture and laws of patriarchy. These authors also examine the alienating effects induced by mental and social re-territorializations of capitalism in which:
"(...) we can find the form of social alienation in action, as long as they [the reterritorializations] prevent flows from escaping the system and keep work within the axiomatic framework of property and desire within the applied framework of the family; but this social alienation in turn includes mental alienation, which is itself represented or reterritorialized in neurosis, perversion, psychosis (mental illnesses)" (Deleuze, Guattari, 1972, p. 383).
References
Albert, S. C. (1999). Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 266(1427), 1501-1506. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0807
Alliez, É., Lazzarato, M. (2016). Guerre et Capital. Paris: Amsterdam.
Borch-Jacobsen, M. (2002). Folies à Plusieurs. De l'hystérie à la dépression. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.
Bourlez, F. (2018). Queer psychanalyse. Clinique mineure et déconstructions du genre. Paris: Hermann.
Chatard, A. (2004). La construction sociale du genre. VEI Diversité, 138, 23-30.
De Gaulejac, V. (2016). La névrose de classe. Paris: Payot & Rivages.
Deleuze, G., Guattari, F. (1972). Anti-Oedipe. Paris: Gallimard.
Domjan, M. (1990). The Modification of Sexual Behavior Through Conditioning: An Avian Model. In J. R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, pp. 242-263. New York: Springer.
D’Udine, B. (1990). The Modification of Sexual Behavior Through Imprinting: A Rodent Model. In J. R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, pp. 221-241. New York: Springer.
Eagle, M. (2018). Core concepts in classical psychoanalysis: Clinical, research evidence and conceptual critiques. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Feierman, J. R. (1990) (Ed.) Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, pp. 201-220. New York: Springer.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité (tome I). Paris: Gallimard.
Freud, S. (1896). The aetiology of hysteria. SE 3, 187-221. London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1900). L’interprétation du rêve. Œuvres complètes, IV. Paris: PUF (2003).
Gilmore, J. H., Knickmeyer, R. C., Gao, W. (2018). Imaging structural and functional brain development in early childhood. Nat Rev Neurosci, 19(3),123–37.
Guattari, F. (1979). Inconscient machinique. Essai de schizo-analyse. Paris: Recherches.
Laplanche, J., Pontalis J.-B. (1997). Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse (13e édition). Paris: PUF.
Pasolini, P. P. (1976). Écrits corsaires. Paris: Flammarion.
Pasolini, P. P. (1994). Qui suis-je? Paris: Arléa.
Paul, A., Kuester, J. (2004). The impact of kinship on mating and reproduction. In B. Chapais and C. M. Berman (Eds.), Kinship and Behavior in Primates, pp. p. 271-291. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
Poenaru, L. (2019). La dissonance cognitive et disciplinaire de la psychanalyse. In Analysis, revue transdisciplinaire de psychanalyse et sciences, 3 (3), 234-331.
Poenaru, L. (2020). Au-delà de la bisexualité constitutive: la queersexualité psychique. In Analysis, revue transdisciplinaire de psychanalyse et sciences, 4 (3), 383-393.
Poenaru, L. (2023). Inconscient économique. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Preciado, P. B. (2020). Je suis un monstre qui vous parle. Paris: Grasset.
Pusey A.E. (1990). Mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance in nonhuman primates. In J. R. Feierman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. New York: Springer.
Fisher, S., Greenberg, R. (1985). The scientific credibility of Freud's theories and therapy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Shepher, J. (1983). Incest: A Biosocial View. New York: Academic Press.
Shi, H., Wang, Y., Li, M. et al. (2021). Impact of parent-child separation on children’s social-emotional development: a cross-sectional study of left-behind children in poor rural areas of China. BMC Public Health, 21, 823.
Talmon, Y. (1972). Family and Community in the Kibbutz. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Turkle, S. (1982). La France freudienne. Paris: Grasset.
Twenge, J. (2017). IGen. New York: Atria Books.
Vernant, J.-P. (1967). Œdipe sans complexe. Raison présente, 4, 3-20. Available online: https://www.persee.fr/doc/raipr_0033-9075_1967_num_4_1_1194
Wakefield, J. C. (2023, sous presse). L’anti-Œdipe du point de vue de la philosophie des sciences et des perspectives foucaldiennes du savoir-pouvoir. In Analysis, revue transdisciplinaire de psychanalyse et sciences, 7(2).
Westermarck, E. (1934). Histoire du mariage. Paris: Mercure de France.