Anti-Oedipus en-procés : a comparative analysis of Kristeva and Deleuze & Guattari

Abstract

The present thesis is an attempt to bring into dialogue what appear to be two radically different approaches of negotiating subjectivity in late Western Modernity. Here the thought of Julia Kristeva as well as Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari are fully engaged. These thinkers, the latter two being considered as one, have until now remained strangers to one another. Consequently much confusion has amassed concerning their respective philosophical, as well as social/political projects. I take up the position that Deleuze and Guattari's account of subjectivity is a commendable attempt to understand a particular type of historical subject: late modern Western man. However I claim that their account comes up short insofar as I argue that they lack the theoretical language in order to fully, and successfully, make their point. Thus I argue that their system does not stand up to its own claims. On the contrary, by embracing the psychoanalytic tradition - staying rather close to the Freudian and Kleinian schools of thought - I argue that it is in fact Kristeva that is better equipped to provide an account of this particular subject. Considerable time is invested in fleshing out the notion of the Other insofar as this Other is central to the constitution of subjectivity. This Other - insofar as this Other is to be found in Kristeva's notion of the chora -- is something I claim that Deleuze and Guattari simply undervalued.