You’re absolutely correct—Lacan did engage deeply with psychosis, starting with his doctoral dissertation (On Paranoid Psychosis in its Relations with Personality, 1932) and continuing throughout his career, particularly in his Seminar III: The Psychoses (1955–56). The difference between Lacan’s and Deleuze and Guattari’s (especially Guattari’s) views on psychosis lies in their conceptual framework, clinical focus, and philosophical orientation. Here’s a comparative analysis:
1. Lacan on Psychosis
• A Clinical and Linguistic Approach
• Lacan understood psychosis as a structural condition, distinct from neurosis, based on the mechanisms of foreclosure (forclusion) and its effects on the subject’s relationship with the Symbolic order.
• Foreclosure refers to the exclusion of the Name-of-the-Father from the Symbolic order, preventing the subject from integrating the stabilizing effects of the paternal function. Without this mediation, the subject is left exposed to the Real, leading to phenomena such as hallucinations and delusions.
• The Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary:
• For Lacan, psychosis is a breakdown in the Symbolic order, leaving the subject unanchored and vulnerable to the intrusive forces of the Real. This leads to a “hole” in the Symbolic, which is often filled with delusional constructions.
• Psychosis as Pathological:
• Lacan’s view of psychosis is primarily clinical, treating it as a pathology that disrupts the subject’s ability to navigate social and linguistic structures. His focus is on understanding and addressing this condition within the framework of psychoanalytic treatment.
• Examples and Case Studies:
• Lacan frequently referred to the case of Daniel Paul Schreber, a famous psychotic subject whose delusions were meticulously documented. Lacan analyzed Schreber’s delusions as a failed attempt to reconstruct a Symbolic order that had collapsed due to foreclosure.
2. Deleuze and Guattari on Psychosis
• Philosophical and Political Approach
• Deleuze and Guattari, particularly in Anti-Oedipus (1972), use psychosis as a philosophical and political concept rather than strictly a clinical diagnosis.
• They critique psychoanalysis (including Lacan’s approach) for treating psychosis as a purely pathological phenomenon, instead exploring it as a model of deterritorialization and an escape from oppressive systems like the Oedipal complex and capitalism.
• Schizophrenia as Conceptual Metaphor:
• For Deleuze and Guattari, schizophrenia (a psychotic condition) is not merely an individual pathology but a privileged example of the productive and creative flows of desire that are repressed by social and institutional structures.
• They view schizophrenia as a form of deterritorialization, breaking free from the rigid codes of the Symbolic order, capitalism, and family structures. While they do not romanticize actual schizophrenia, they see it as a conceptual tool for thinking about liberation and creativity.
• Critique of the Symbolic Order:
• Deleuze and Guattari reject the Lacanian framework of the Symbolic as overly repressive and deterministic. For them, the Symbolic order is a system of social coding that captures and constrains the free flows of desire, and psychosis represents a line of flight from this system.
3. Key Differences
A. Clinical vs. Philosophical Focus
• Lacan: Psychosis is a clinical structure, defined by a failure to integrate the Symbolic order. The emphasis is on understanding how the subject copes with this failure and develops delusional constructions to compensate.
• Deleuze and Guattari: Psychosis is primarily a philosophical and political metaphor, representing liberation from coding systems and the potential for radical creativity. While influenced by clinical psychoanalysis, their focus is on its broader implications for society and thought.
B. Pathology vs. Potential
• Lacan: Psychosis is a pathology that results from structural deficiencies in the subject’s relationship with the Symbolic. It disrupts the subject’s ability to function within society and language.
• Deleuze and Guattari: Psychosis, especially schizophrenia, is reinterpreted as a positive force that deterritorializes repressive systems. They do not deny the suffering involved in actual psychotic conditions but focus on its philosophical implications for creativity and freedom.
C. The Role of the Symbolic
• Lacan: The Symbolic is essential for subjectivity and the mediation of desire. Its absence or failure leads to psychosis.
• Deleuze and Guattari: The Symbolic is a repressive system of coding that captures and constrains desire. Psychosis challenges or escapes this system, opening new possibilities for thought and existence.
D. Psychosis and Society
• Lacan: Psychosis is an individual condition with social implications. The focus is on the subject’s failure to integrate societal structures.
• Deleuze and Guattari: Psychosis is societal and political; it critiques the repression of desire by institutions like the family, capitalism, and psychoanalysis itself. It has revolutionary potential in its ability to deterritorialize these systems.
4. Points of Tension
• Foreclosure vs. Deterritorialization:
• For Lacan, psychosis involves foreclosure—the exclusion of a key signifier (Name-of-the-Father) that destabilizes the subject’s relationship with reality.
• For Deleuze and Guattari, psychosis involves deterritorialization—a creative and disruptive escape from repressive systems. This is not a structural deficiency but a productive force.
• Delusions:
• Lacan views delusions as the psychotic subject’s attempt to reconstruct a failed Symbolic order.
• Deleuze and Guattari reinterpret delusions as lines of flight, imaginative constructions that express desire’s escape from repression.
5. Compatibility and Critiques
• Deleuze and Guattari on Lacan:
• Deleuze and Guattari critique Lacan for what they see as an overly rigid and repressive understanding of psychosis, rooted in the dominance of the Symbolic and the Oedipal framework.
• Lacan on Creativity:
• Lacan acknowledges creativity in psychosis (e.g., Schreber’s delusional system as a compensatory reconstruction), but he remains focused on its pathological dimensions.
• Bridging the Gap:
• While Deleuze and Guattari celebrate the deterritorializing potential of psychosis, Lacan’s insights into the structural challenges of psychosis provide a more grounded understanding of its difficulties and suffering.
6. In Summary
• Lacan: Psychosis is a clinical condition caused by a failure in the Symbolic order (foreclosure). It is primarily pathological, though it involves creative attempts to reconstruct reality.
• Deleuze and Guattari: Psychosis (especially schizophrenia) is a philosophical and political metaphor, representing a deterritorialization of repressive systems like the Oedipal complex and capitalism. While they acknowledge the suffering of actual psychotic individuals, they use psychosis conceptually to explore liberation and creativity.
This difference reflects their broader aims: Lacan’s focus on clinical psychoanalysis and individual subjectivity, and Deleuze and Guattari’s focus on philosophy, politics, and social critique.
