[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.If there is a mise en scene, it is directed by asocial desiring-machine whose product should not be considered ab-stractly, separating the girl's and the boy's cases, as if each were a littleego taking up its own business with daddy and mommy.On the contrary,we should consider the complementary emsemble made up of boy-girland parents-agents of production and antiproduction, this ensemblebeing present at the same time in each individual and in the socius thatpresides over the organization of the group fantasy.Simultaneously theboys are beaten-initiated by the teacher on the little girl's erotic stage(seeing-machine), and obtain satisfaction in a masochistic fantasyinvolving the mother (anal machine).The result is that the boys are ableto see only by becoming little girls, and the girls cannot experience thepleasure of punishment except by becoming boys.It is a whole chorus, amontage: back in the village after a raid in Vietnam, in the presence oftheir weeping sisters, the filthy Marines are beaten by their instructor, onwhose knees the mommy is seated, and they have orgasms for havingbeen so evil, for having tortured so well.It's so bad, but also so good!PSYCHOANALYSIS AND FAMILIAUSM: THE HOLY FAMILY 81Perhaps one will recall a sequence from the film Hearts and Minds:we see Colonel Patton, the general's son, saying that his guys are great,that they love their mothers, their fathers, and their country, that theycry at the religious services for their dead buddies, fine boys; then thecolonel's face changes, grimaces, and reveals a big paranoiac in uniformwho shouts in conclusion: but still, they're a bloody good bunch ofkillers! It is obvious that when traditional psychoanalysis explains thatthe instructor is the father, and that the colonel too is the father, and thatthe mother is nonetheless the father too, it reduces all of desire to afamilial determination that no longer has anything to do with the socialfield actually invested by the libido.Of course there is always somethingfrom the father or the mother that is taken up in the signifyingchain daddy's mustache, the mother's raised arm but it comes fur-tively to occupy a place among the collective agents.The terms ofOedipus do not form a triangle, but exist shattered into all corners of thesocial field the mother on the instructor's knees, the father next to thecolonel.Group fantasy is plugged into and machined on the socius.Being fucked by the socius, wanting to be fucked by the socius, does notderive from the father and mother, even though the father and motherhave their roles there as subordinate agents of transmission or execu-tion.When the notion of group fantasy was elaborated in the perspectiveof institutional analysis in the works of the team at La Borde Clinic,assembled around Jean Oury the first task was to show how it differedfrom individual fantasy.It became evident that group fantasy wasinseparable from the "symbolic" articulations that define a social fieldinsofar as it is real, whereas the individual fantasy fitted the whole ofthis field over "imaginary" givens.If this first distinction is drawn out,we see that the individual fantasy is itself plugged into the existing socialfield, but apprehends it in the form of imaginary qualities that confer onit a kind of transcendence or immortality under the shelter of which theindividual, the ego, plays out its pseudo destiny: what does it matter if Idie, says the general, since the Army is immortal? The imaginarydimension of the individual fantasy has a decisive importance over thedeath instinct, insofar as the immortality conferred on the existing socialorder carried into the ego all the investments of repression, thephenomena of identification, of "superegoization" and castration, all theresignation-desires (becoming a general; acquiring low, middle, or highrank), including the resignation to dying in the service of this order,whereas the drive itself is projected onto the outside and turned againstthe others (death to the foreigner, to those who are not of our ownranks!).The revolutionary pole of group fantasy becomes visible, on the�2 ANTI-OEDIPUScontrary, in the power to experience institutions themselves as mortal, to destroythem or change them according to the articulations of desire and the social field,by making the death instinct into a veritable institutional creativity.For that isprecisely the criterion at least the formal criterion that distinguishes therevolutionary institution from the enormous inertia which the law communicatesto institutions in an established order.As Nietzsche says; churches, armies,States which of all these dogs wants to die?There results a third difference between group fantasy and the so-calledindividual fantasy.The latter has as subject the ego, insofar as it is determined bythe legal and legalized institutions in which it "imagines itself," to the pointwhere, even in its perversions, the ego conforms to the exclusive use of thedisjunctions imposed by the law (for example, Oedipal homosexuality).Butgroup fantasy no longer has anything but the drives themselves as subject, andthe desiring-machines formed by them with the revolutionary institutions.Thegroup fantasy includes the disjunctions, in the sense that each subject, dischargedof his personal identity but not of his singularities, enters into relations withothers following the communication proper to partial objects: everyone passesinto the body of the other on the body without organs.In this respect Klossowski has convincingly shown the inverse relationshipthat pulls the fantasy in two directions, as the economic law establishesperversion in the "psychic exchanges," or as the psychic exchanges on thecontrary promote a subversion of the law: "Anachronistic, relative to theinstitutional level of gregariousness, the singular state can, according to its moreor less forceful intensity, bring about a deactualization of the institution itself anddenounce it in turn as anachronistic [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]