nationalism and the body politic

8/11/2019 Nationalism and the Body Politic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nationalism-and-the-body-politic 1/17

CHAPTER SIX

The sch izoanalysis of C illes Dele uzeand F6lix Cuattari, or the political

between schizophrenia and paranoiaAudrone Zukauskaite

illes Deleuze and F6lix Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism andSchizophrenia provides an inspiring analysis of the processes ofdesire production. Deleuze and Guattari do not differentiate

between libidinal economy and political economy: libidinal and polit-ical flows form the processes of desire whiclu in their turn, producethat which we call the real. In this sense, schizophrenia designates notthe clinical state of mental illness, but the deepest tendency ofcapitalism, its potential for change and permanent revolution. Thecounter-tendency of the same capitalism is seen as paranoia. paranoiahere means the libidinal tendency to stick to stable and fixed mean-ings, beliefs, and authorities. Thus, schizophrenia and paranoiad_esignate two poles of social libidinal investment which are anarysedin terms of deterritorialization and reterritorialization, the molecular

and the molar, and the revolutionary and fascist drives in thepolitical. In this chapter, the schizophrenic and paranoid poles areexamined using the concrete example of the Lithuanian politicalscene: the revolutionary drives of 7990 were quickly replaced aftertwenty years of independence by reactionary nationalist forces whichreveal the deep connections between the paranoid form of the psycheand the nation-state.



110 NATIONALISM AND THE BODY POLITIC

Psych oa n al y si s vs. sch zoan alysi s

ln Anti-oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia, Gilles Deleuze and F6lixGuattari provide a systematic critique of Freudian and Lacanian psy-

choanalyiis. Their main reproach to psychoanalysis is that it always

remains-positively or negatively-dependent on the notion of

subjective identity. Arguably, though Lacanian psychoanalysis postu-

lates the notion of a "barred" or "split" subject, it presupposes a

virtual identity which was lost and allegedly could be gained through

the process oianalysis. By contrast, Deleuze and Guattari argue for

the project of schizoanalysis where lhe qchilgphrenic is free froqr an1'

forms of identity and i9 .o,,pS.-l.l,g"Jg1"l-9w 1ey lfqws o .desire' Deleuze

and Guattari claim ttrit ;;e icliiiophrenic out for a walk is a better

model than a neurotic lying on the analyst's couch. A breath of fresh

air, a relationship with the outside world" (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004,

p.2).They.o-pur"theschizophrenicwiththecharactersofSamuelbeckett's novels who decide to venture outdoors and who';after all

their trips, trajectories, and methods of locomotion, become a "finelyt"""d machine" (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p' 2)'

In Negof iations, Deleuze defines schizoanalysis as a project which

has two sides: it is both a criticism of the Oedipus complex and

psychoanalysis, and a criticism of capitalism and capitalist produc-

tion.

We attack psychoanalysis on the following points, which relate to its

practice as well as its theory: its cult of Oedipus, the way it reduceslverything to the libido and domestic investments, even when these

u." i.u.rrfor"d and generalized into structuralist or symbolic forms.

we,re saying the libido becomes unconsciously invested in ways that

are distinct from the ways interests are preconsciously invested but

that impinge on the social field no less than invested interests.

(Deleuze, 1995, P.20)

Psychoanalysis gets stuck on domestic investmentsand never gets

to the social investr-n9 1-q-9f .tb9 lipldo; that is why psycho-'.".'llti:shoutd be replacei by ichizoanatysis, which rylltn9 --lrbtdtTttinvestments as a form of social, political ul4:-"glg$lginvestment' To

*hi*" tf,i", D"lorr" ut'td Euattari replace the"?-t1"-1, 9 eg*nSgIL;

scious with the notion' ol1he m'ffii:rte*;an"dA-linguisiic paradigm of,'," i; 1 t f ^^:--^ --^1..^r:^-firffi;',fraTfiG-vfitii'Eie"iunctionalist model of desire production.



THE SCHIZOANALYSIS OF CILLES DELEUZE AND FELIX CUATTARI 111

Deleuze and Guattari qo4pare the uncons

Y "hp__ro-duc_es dif{grent affects. In this sense, they define themselves

as strict functionalists:

what we're interested in is how something works, functions - findingthe m achine. But the si gni f ier' s g t,..U gU gf_tl-tL"_9g9jqqLlry&| i-gg:it mean?' - tncieea i1,s thtg.

-v-e-1yg99tF""qofi-bbi+.{jqils Brii*-rr,

mfiilo;;io"r'"ao"s."t ;;;" ";i;iii,"g, nor does tanguage. .. . Theonly question is how anything works, with its intensities, flows,processes/ partial objects - none of which mean anything. (Deleuze,

1995, pp.21-22)

The unconscious is machinic rather than structural or linguistic; thatis why it should be analysed not in terms of signification and mean-ing, but in terms of desire production. The unconscious works as afactory prg{ugi4g different intensities and flows, but sometimes itbreaks down. This was the case of Antonin Artaud, one day "findinghimself with no shape or form whatsoever, right there where he wasat that moment" (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p.9). At that moment,Artaud interrupts the proper functioning of desire production andinventshb- :9f

-yjqhgyJ-org-ql{i;a-19rm-1er?lt-ip-l"a:i i-o"-Desiring-machines make us an organism; but at the very heart of thisproduction, within the very production of this production, the bodysuffers from being orggnized in this way, flgmnol pv_ ng_s_qge-q, tre1

_qol"9-tIrge.4tzg"tigit-..ot,lo-

9rgary-7-4ti91-et.el . (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p.8)

An "absolutely rigid stasis" can appear in the midst of the productionand produce the body without organs as an element of antiproduc-tion.

By stressing the processes of functioning instead of the processesof meaning, Deleuze and Guattari suggest a paqq [g .-b_etlveg[.dg-.s.ge.plodg,c- 1-9n*ir-r-"Sth.izea11dy H and the

production of the goods in thecapifal 1t politica].9-1onomy. ln this respect, desire does not have anypaiiiiutii fciim oG;fGneE-ivhich could be called "psychic reality,,. Ifdesire exists, it exists only when assembled or machined (Deleuze &Parnef 2006, p. 77).In other words, desire is nol,a :p*q-r_ -qpeggs-_1ea-l-

f U i gl-*s_o;1r9 r_i1g*-c_9 n-s .ry.c ted_.. A n oJh e r imp o r ta n t u rp" "

t I th ui{-e-qi1-e-.. is no_t an individual affair, but the expression of a collective.



112 NATIoNALISM AND THE BoDy poltlc

"Since every assemblage is collective, is itself a collective, it is indeedtrue that every desire is the affair of the people, or an affair of themasses, a molecular affair" (Deleuze & Parnet, 2006, p.71). Desireimpregnates every field of social and political reality in such a waythat the libidinal economy is assembled together with the politicaleconomy. From this, it follows that desire production has the powert_o- orgalise_s-o5glpggrd ucti on : in oth er woidi, d esi re pioduces y/h{Lwe ggfl. q991rl_ I:r1111 As Deleuze and Guattari point out, "Il desireproduces, its product is real. If desire is productive, it can be produc-

tive only in the real world and can produce only reality. . . . The objec-tive being of desire is the Real in and of itself" (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p.28). In this respect, Deleuze and Guattari oppose the Lacanianidea that the unconscious is structured like a language, and interpretthe unconscious in terms of the machinic. By contrast to Lacanian"idealism", Deleuze and Guattari define their project of schizoanaly-sis, or materialist psychiatry, as a method which investigates theunconscious materialist processes immanent to the social fabric:

There is no such thing as the social production of reality on the onehand, and a desiring-production that is mere fantasy on the other. . . .

The truth of the matter is that social production is purely and simply desir-ing-production itself under determinate conditions. We maintain that tlresocial field is immediately invested by desiqg, that it is the historicallydetermined product of desire, and that libido has no need of anymediation or sublimatiory any psychic operation, any transformatioryin order to invade and invest the productive forces and the relationsof production. There is only desire and the social, and nothing else.

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, pp. 30-31)

Desire production does not exist in any other way than as embod-ied in social, political, and economical assemblages. In this respect,Deleuze and Guattari neglect such psychoanalytic notions as dream ortantasy:

It is not possible to attribute a special form of existence to desire, a

mental or psychic reality that is presumably different from the mater-ial reality of social production. Desiring-machines are not fantasy-machines or dream-machines, which supposedly can be distinguishedfrom technical and social machines. Rather, fantasies are secondaryexpressions, deriving from the identical nature of the two sorts of



THE SCHIZOANALYSIS OF CILLES DELEUZE AND FELIX GUATTARI 1 13

machines in any given set of circumstances. (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004,P.32)

In fact, Deleuze and Guattari deny the very opposition betweenpsychic reality and material reality and assert inri ,I psychic phen-omena are immanent to the materiar reality of production. In thisrespect, the unconscious is also described as a materiar, rather than alinguistic, phenomenon:

For the unconscious itself is no more structural than personal, it doesnot symbolize any more than it imagines or represents; it engineers, itis machinic. Neither imaginary nor symboric, it is the Real inltselr the'impossible real' and its production. (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p. 60)

The materialist notions of desire and the unconscious explain thespecific role that schizophrenia takes in Deleuze and Guattari,s pro-ject. Desire functions as a machinic desire production and, likewise,capitalist production consists in folowing the paths of desire and, inthis sense, opens an unrimited space for utiainat investment. Deleuzea n d Gua tta ri ar gu e th a t ca pita li st plglgct1o1 f o_Uqf y. a-q.hi3gphreqi-c, u i

qq4gl g t 4 ggI" L{o_{u qt -o"n b ecau se U o th"r

p,i tu-tir mgn dEeE& o u r",-trying t" o""r"o-"-a"ii""a *4gp ana ierrito.ies. Thus, "rprr;i;to*s ina ichizophienii no*, hurre a great uttin ty, Uot-it:_rp-qa U"Xn:Jj,o--f tq,ce-nslde{ lhem qs being rdentical, S:biZqp] fgd" flowsinvolvebothdecodiry_g$_d,ql9_Titorialization;-.:pl;iid&:ry.-r:f

e;_i \,itiiya_-dt9o,I.i4g--a-i{d"6ilt-a;rar:rrtir"but*lai;*a-e-mdingisI"pl?:" 1 PJ ?Il9 1g li?ution which transf-orms go o ds o_1

-q11a 1i u_e-s.. oJ

-anykilq into quantitative monetaly flg* ,-rtt";";;"ih;iUoin

"upiramm;iidschizoph?i:nia-foilo# deioaed ho*s, but not in the same

way: "they are not at all the same thing, depending on whether thedecodings are caught up in an axiomatic or not" (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p.268).In other words, caaltal_iruur.9_9-tslhe._d_-e_-c*o*4e *flo_ tys and-qers*{orms-th€rn'"-into -axiomatiQlz whereas r.hirophre"t, ;;k"; th"',flo lf_ pr9_g9_9-{ i1 4 f le e qlale an d piodu c;ir;;aaoii;ii;" a u rkt,h-out.organs. "Hence schizophrenia is not the identity of capitariim, buton the contrary its difference, its divergence, ind its deaih" (Dereuze& Guattari, 2004, p. 262). Capitatisri inhibits this schizophrenictendency by making it its basic principle of _functioning. Thus, g3EL_taliga-,-is more schizophqe$g than schizophrenia itseif because it



114 NATtoNALtsM AND THE BoDy poltlc

pgry11g$ly l1319lolt":_91j91ry1limits into internal ones and, in thisway, ensures its permanent overproduction.

Hence one can say that schizophrenia is the exterior limit of capitalismitself or the conclusion of its deepest tendency, but that llg,JgUqn*e4Iqngt91sg19_9$i5i.:lhe _i idlr i -qh19-lglds-+_cus.r"tharirpush*--back or displace this limit, by substituting for it its own immanent rela-

-tivO f-m;rci-;H;ti-ii"Gntinually reproduces on a widened scale. Itaxiomatizes with one hand what it decodes with the other. (Deleuze& Guattari, 2004, p.267) ,

,

9:grtr11,r_- arrests the schilgphlgnic flows P-y. Iru"pf,orming thedecoded flows into the net#ork of axiomatic ieiationships. In thisway, capitalism opposes the revolutionary potential of schizo-flowsby posing a new interior limit.".- .Hen-ce,

ihere ii an affinity between a revolutionary and the figureof the schizophrenic, though it is important to stress that lot_9y-9_ly___schizophrenic is, by definition, a revolutionary- an_d ttice oersa. As

Deleuze and Cuattari point out,

there is a whole world of difference between the schizo and the revo-lutionary . . . The schizo is not revolutionary, but the. schizophrenicprocess - in terms of which thq"ryb|z-9_i9--m_9lely--the-- llglruption, oriltconiinue66irtrftl16Yofi:i,r_ if1e_fi Gq-ttg. Jor 5eygf yiion.-(DeleuZe*-E C",tdi, 2ooA il" ti4J"' -'"'

The same is true for the revolutionaries:

We're not saying revolutionaries are schizophrenics. We're sayingft el{.lg:*gg4'rlrg.ssp*9f'd-qc"qCins 11* g9 :Ilt9{allzltion

-yligh

gdrgyglgligle5lgc_ti_vlly-lgt.Sl.:p*_Lq_.titg..i+ e,._t}e.plgduction o{

*r:glhfglig. We're considering a problem to do with the close linkbetween c3p1[gUgn i$jrybqg .elygtp on the one hand, and between

{gyglglio_ffqfy-.mgyg-rllents. and. schizo"analysis- on the other. We cantalk in terms of capitalist paranoia and revolutionary schizophrenia.

. .(Deleuze, 1,995,

pp.2T24)I .-

l'','' ) ' t If codes and territories represent molar structures and aggregates oflr"r"rt" ' ' power, then the process of decoding and deterritorialization seeks to

escape these structures and engender new molecular forms of socialorganisation. Schizophrenic flows create what Deleuze and Guattaricall "the lines of flieht or escape"'

t



THE SCHIZOANALYSIS OF CILLES DELEUZE AND FELIX CUATTARI 1 15

We set against this fascism of power active, positive lines of flight,because these lines open up desire, desire's machines, and the organi-

zation of a social field of desire: it's not a matter of escaping 'person-aliy', from oneself, but of allowing something to escape, like burstinga pipe or a boil. (Deleuze, 1995, p. 19)

Schizophrenic escape creates the potential for a revolutionary invest-ment and, in this sense, breaks free from conformist, reactionary, andfascistic investments.

Schizophrenia and paranoia as two forms of libidinal investment

As far as every libidinal investment is simultaneously a social invest-ment, schizoanalysis can be seen as a "militant libidino-economic,libidino-political analysis". As a result of this analysis, Deleuze andGuattari define two major modes of social investmen which are simi-lar to two pot"r6-Gi@noid polei'"--

At times we contrasted the molar and the molecular as the paranoiac,signifying, and structured lines of integration, and the schizophrenic,machinig and dispersed lines of escape; or again as the staking out ofthe perverse reterritorializations, and as the movement of the schizo-phrenic deterritorializations. At other times, on the contrary, wecontrasted them as the two major types of equally social investments:the one sedentary. Lnd brglyacglaugr;1 l^d of a reactionary or fgqgq _ .1

tendency; the otherr'{omadic and golyyb*cal, and of a rgvglulj-q;1auy Jtendency. (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p. 373)

If the paranoiac formula is: "I am one of your kind", "I am a pureAryan, of a superior race for all time", then the formula of the schizowould be: "I am of a race inferior for all eternity", "I am a beast, a

black". As Deleuze and Guattari explain, these two poles,,paranoiagndsqhily-[r-e3'3,-9gsrt-t-YIb.egshgqLqI-iillrs.glsgfu eue,q d-{:tlgr' L{elio-1,:-{fgl+ e^mlg1T*"q" 9"h9_9lir"9r11e_p_glsib_le. rhis is whyonEloF the major tasks of materialist psychiatry or schizoanalysis is toinvestigate these oscillations of the unconscious from one type oflibidinal investment to the other.

It is important to stress that both schizophrenia and paranoia

{:Ig11l9 _l_9j* g--ql.,.liS"gl ltatq qf mgnlal illness, b9}. hp deepes



-j:

116 NATIoNALISM AND THE BoDY Pollrlci

tglfdqlgy of capitalism and capitalist desire production' As far as

desiie pioduction determinessocial production, schizophrenia and

paranoia express the two tendencies of libidinal-social investment:

ihe first tendency is to set free desire production, to open the poten-

tial for new social and political formations; the second tendency is to

stop and bind desire production, to stratify social and political terri-

tories, and, in this way, subjugate individuals. S9 aqfhr,el a -is 199-91

ciated with the creative tendency of capitalism, its potential for change

,"ap*au,,ant ievoiution. laianoia is associated with the counter-

t".a"".y to fiX meanings, beliefs, and authorities,to stick to defined

ter{ito,ries. e; Hoi6;d (2003) points out, "despite their psychological

o.igi.tr, the terms 'paranoia' and 'schizophrenia' for Deleuze and

Guattari designate effects of the fundamental organizing principles

and dynamics of capitalist society" (p. 3). P-q-rqnoia replesenls capltal;

ism's archaic or traditional tendencies, wherea-s sqhizophrenia refers

to c?ftalidm's ienotutionary-potentlal. As Holland points out,

if we understand schizophrenia (in this first approximation) to desig-

nate unlimited semiosis, a radically fluid and extemporaneous form ofmeaning, paranoia by contrast would designate an absolute system of

belief where all meaning was permanently fixed and exhaustively

defined by a supreme authority, figure-head, or god' (Holland' 2003'

p'3)

In the last chapter of Anti-oedipus, titled "Introduction to schizo-

analysis,,, Deleuze and Guattari define the negative task of schizoana-

lysis and the two positive tasks of schizoanalysis.The term schizo-

analysis itself suggests that Deleuze and Guattari see q r1s,9 19.

fn.:li-:g":9_g9."--t31ftu"ingthe potential for liberating the individua-

from psych , q ,-c4ti-i politic-al ionstraints. In this respect, l, -g-."-",g"u:ii"ffit*rrou"iiviir is to destroy everything that Deltiize-anii

t"utiu.i d"fine u" the molar, that is, stratified, fixed to specific codes

or territories: "schizoanalysis must devote itself with all its strength to'thii rie'ies"siiy destructions. Destroying beliefs and representations,

theatrical scenes" (Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, p'345)'

In its destructive task, schizoanalysis must proceed as quickly as

possible,butitcanalsoproceedonlywithgreatpatience'greatcare'ty successively undoing the representative territorialities and reterri-

torializations through which a subject passes in his individual history.

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, P.349)



1 1 8 NATIoNALISM AND THE BoDY PoLITlc

organs), the libidinal economy also oscillates between the schizo-

phrenic flows of flight or escape and the reactive paranoiac attempt to

Lind tho"" flows. Whereas paranoiac investments are always at theservice of molar structures and aggregates of power, trying to define

territories and codes, schizophrenic investments break these struc-

tures and aggregates apart and liberate molecular movements of

multiple singularities. Y"ltp*tg frlgElg$i9l-tgletLtbg;9y-gllrtrqllana-Igtelt,lltglhgsxfq$ lfsl -heL.si,;-Letsqnv,.erji.b*ls-trt-o-- -be- e"xi-q.r-I-qtie

losic of capitalism.- _}-* ---' - '-*--Ai-tlCGh"iihirophrenic impulses seem for Deleuze and Guattari

quite "natural" (everyone wants to change the status quo, to jumpfrom or escape from his or her stratified territory), the opposite para-

noiac impulse is more difficult to explain:

why do many of those who have or should have an objective revolu-

tionary interest maintain a preconscious investment of a reactionary

type? And more rarely, how do certain people whose interest is obiec-

tively reactionary come to effect a preconscious revolutionary invest-

ment? (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p' 378)

In fact this is the well-known Reichian question: "w_gid lhe masses ,

desire fascism?" Or, as Guattari has formulated it, "everyone wants to".b";*i;;di;'. ffiy does someone who is repressed desire his or her

repression? {tryj-oes desire desire its own repre-ss ? This is the

reactionary f;;;f d"rir"-whlEh-Dlifiiie ;if, Cueii;i ca ll the anti-

production: "antiproduction is loved for itself, as is the way in which

desire represses itself in the great capitalist aggregate. Repressing

desire, not only for others but in oneself,being the cop for others and

for oneself - that is what arouses, and it is not ideology, it is economy.(Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, P. 380)

Bg-q d-e-g. the interplay of production and antiproduction, th199p-i;

talist dynamics is defined by ,thg opposition between.decoding and .

idcodi ns, ;;Gr ii lo riuiirdiion and reterri toriali zation. Decodin g ca n be-si:en

as I fbiitl*r"urpect of capitalist axiomatization: the flows of capi-

tal, Iabour power, oi libidinal energy are unleashed from the restric-

tions of code; on the other hand, this positive aspect is counter-

attacked by an opposite tendency to recuperate the free flows ofcapital o. iiulainui energy (private ownership, family institution).These two aspects of aecodlng and recoding can be associated withdeterritorialization and reterritorialization. As Holland points out,




on the one hand, capitalism devotes itself to production as an end initself, to developing the productivity of socialized labor to the utmost:

this is the moment of deterritorialization. yet, on the other hand, dueto private investment in the means of production, social labor and lifeare restricted to production and consumption that valorize only thealready-existing capital-stock: this is the moment of reterritorializa-tion. (Holland,2003, p. 80)

In other words, the moment of deterritorialiZ--alip,_f,r frees both thefgry"jS-tptgdu$lon anfl con'sumpiio-1, and at the same time ievoiultionises the labour power; the m_ope-1 of reterritoriali ??.lr_q\, by Con:

lry'f9jf-iliislii:emov"-".1[r-1".""".,unrffi

r-h#il-G-sir;auction.-Anotfi-efdi5tiiiction, which is important"i" a"riri"g it," opporitron

between the schizophrenic and paranoid poles, is the dLtinctronbetween h: ""Uit

grt"d gI (groupe assuj.etti) and U9i:St_glggp:_(groupe-sujet). The subject g;oup has the ability to formffiIffrs ideo- -

logical statement, whereas the subjugated group simply adopts acertain ideology without verifying it. As Genosko (200gf points out,

the subjectgroup's alienation has an internar source arising from itsefforts to connect with other Eroups . . . whereas the sribjugated

group's alienation is thought to have an external source, from whichit protects itself by withdrawing into itself and constructing richlyparanoid protective formations, providing a kind of refuge and adistorted sense of security for its members. (p. 57)

The subjugated groups are based on traditionar roles, hierarchies,modes of inclusion and exclusion; such a group usually identifies witha particular institution, which grounds its permanent existence(church, army, party, nation). .rh"g SUbf"Sl g*tg1lp,*btr-gq$J.Igpla.iil*gg_tio.-,p.everyj-lplilution and acqr-ii,Ji"i tiin"itiii.,rtid;iity ;fr[i;;;

_ -b :. g3 gl 1y o""'c9 - -(B o gne;' 19 8e;' ?:- s6):" Alth.du}fi " IHs a; fIdii6ilT,

quite relative because every subject group can easily assume the formof a subjugated group and aice uersa, a subjugated group can act as asubject group under certain determinate conditions. This oscillation

us: the su group/ protects its own idenTilrTr- - -----

tnventing an external enemy, can be seen as representing a paranoidpole, and a subject group, which is permanently inventirig new iden_tities, can be seen as representing a schizophrenic pole.



120 NATIoNALtsM AND THE BoDy poLtrrc

The political between schizophrenia and paranoia

Although the distinctionbetween schizophrenic and paranoid poles isquite clear, Deleuze and Guattari complicate this distinction with the

division between what they call the preconscious libidinal invest-ments of class or interest, and the unconscious libidinal investments5?p6ip or desire. Ai Deleuze and Guattari point out, "what is reac-tionary or revoiuiibfiary in the preconscious investment of interestdoes not necessarily coincide with what is reactionary or revolution-ary in the unconscious libidinal investment" (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p. 380). According to Deleuze and Guattari, power alwaysspeaks in terms of interests, aims, and causality. This is what Marxisttheory used to call an ideology (or preconscious investments, accord-ing to Deleuze and Guattari). Besides these sets of interests and aims,Deleuze and Guattari introduce the unconscious investments ofdesire. From this, it follows that the preconscious revolutionaryinvestments (which dealaie a new socius, new aims, etc.) can havethG uncoficlouS- fi:dcfibnaiy investments (yg[ich continue to investthe former social body, the old forms of po*e, and its codes indterritories). This means that

even when the libido embraces the new body - the new force thatcorresponds to the effectively revolutionary goals and syntheses fromthe viewpoint of the preconscious - it is not certain that the uncon-scious libidinal investment is itself revolutionary. (Deleuze & Guattari,2004, p. 381)

Another important distinction is that a preconscious revolutionalways refers to a new regime of social production, whereas an uncon-scious revolution operates within the body of the socius, creating thebody without organs: for example, some kind of antiproductionwhich overthrows power. As Deleuze and Guattari point out, in thecase of preconscious revolution "the break is between two forms ofsocius", but in the case of unconscious revolution "the break is withinthe socius itself" (2004, p. 381).

These oscillations between the preconscious and the unconscious,the reactionary (paranoiac)

and the revolutionary(schizophrenic)

investments could be analysed using the concrete example of theLithuanian political scene. I would like to introduce two examples,which are both connected to some specific "teruitory" . The first




example refers to two events which took place in connction with theLithuanian parliament. The first event took place on 13 ]anuary in1991, shortly after Lithuania re-established its independ-ence inlD9O.On the night of L3 January, almost all of the population went out onto the streets to defend the Lithuanian parliament from the Soviettroops. The second event took place on 16 Janggry 200-9, when thesame population attacked the parliament) protesting against severesocial cuts and demanding proper living conditions. FollowingDeleuze and Guattari, we can describe these two events in terms ofpreconscious and unconscious revolutionary investments. From a

histoii&l peispeiiive, we are used to thinking aboui the liberationmovements and investments which took place in the Baltic countriesin 1990 as being revolutionar/; they aimed to destroy the old Sovietempire (the despotic State-machine, as Deleuze and Guattari wouldcall it) and establish new independent states..Buf together with thesepreconscious revolutionary driveg which were formulated in terms ofinterests and aims, we can also discern the _rgpgp_s--cious patanoiacdesire to revive the olcl-nation-state fro-m the inier-war period

(Liih";il;ui ur. i"dependent state from 1918 to 1940) with all itscodes, beliefs, and territories. The unconscious paranoiac intestmextsbEta-me manifest"shortty after the re-establishment of independence in1991. The independent state immediately started functioning as anapparatus of repression, in a paranoiac way defending a pre-warsystem of codes and beliefs and excluding those members who do notrepresent the "Lithuanian kind": ethnic and sexual minorities.

U-gg1: 'Jh:-":e$ -T?9-9-?--l'ev-"r-liaed-L9b:-'.9'"P{."9-9.":-sciously rgvoluti_o-1qy:-i-t was a spontaneous reaction'by very diversesocial groups to the pressure of power structures. Following Deleuzeand Guattari, we can call these reactions the unconscious revolution-ary investments. The unconscious investments are not so easy to des-cribe, because, as Deleuze and Guattari point out, "the unconsciousrevolutionary break implies for its part the body without organs as thelimit of the socius". Thus, the unconscious revolutionary drives breakwith the social order, and arrest its organisation and functioning-thisis why the unconscious

revolutionary investments lack any organisa-tion or shape. It is interesting to notice that after the events on 16

January in2009, no political group took responsibility for these events;on the other hand, political analysts seemed to lack political terms todescribe these events. This lack of terminology could be a symptom



,l,:r-./ i t\ij

.i('

. iil, ., i 1l i'

that on 16 January 2009 anew social gloup had appeared-Hardt and.

N-gr(20q0 a;il-itltia.ffiultiiuae, Hal{t and Negri point out that "the

fiultituae.]a-ior"por"a of innumerable internal differences that cannever be reduced to a unity or a single identity. . . . The multitude is

a multiplicity of all these singular differences" (Hardt & Negri' 2004'

p. xiv). Virno, following Thomas Hobbes, defines the multitude in

gppgiI'g" JgJt's-qsnqiplgf lhg -P.ggP-le:t6e pJopie presuppi;se a*

ffii."f"*iJ"t tity ;d ;i*rfiioiii,titeio the existence of the state;

tg l+ltltlJtl{",.by-*contrast, never assumes.-any j"9-trrttr i-ag-lti .y"."9*{' . ffiv, acts againil tFe sfrG-;As Viiiroloints out, "if there are people,

theTE-G-no ,riirttitra"; if ifr"r" is a multitude,there are no people"

(virno, 2004, p.23)' T 9g-1lllSglql9..g-r-lhg-tr+lt"1tittt4p- g, l*1 ht€

122 NATtoNALISM AND THE BoDY Pollrlc

irffimAas**#hic'1i-;me;#;';ryeslte*", -o"*gl9 31i3P*ilp"-T'rhu-.fft"d" *i""r"spont@, exPressing its schizo-

- .rriiyse" .the-multitude willpioLt"*ttetlk'.-g,,Si:gfh,e.lis..syqlytiqprvdri-v-es

of*ho.dy--withorrt.qlgeryybl-+-Te3qq-lh-e-d-eatkLo.f the"soeial'-

-*T.)""g t;-""pfii"how this transformation (from people to the

multliude) is possible, it is important to stress that the preconscious

revolutionary investments (declaring a new independent state' a new

socius), contain unconscious reactionary investments, which continue

to be constructed on the old forms of power, old state apparatuses'

and the reactionary notion of the nation (in this case, based on the

historical idea of the nation-state). so, even if the revolutionary dis-]

course is formulated in terms of freedom, liberation, and the creation i

of a new socius (a new subiect group), actually it still retains some I

paranoiac investments, which are easily masked by the rational dis-|

course of aims and interests. As Deleuze and Guattari point out, t

it covers over the irrational character of the paranoiac investment

under an existing order of interests, of causes and means' of aims and

reasons; or else the investment of interest itself gives rise to and

creates those interests that rationalize the paranoiac investment . ' .

(Deleuze & Guattari, 2004, P.41'l)

The discourse of interests and aims disguises the paranoiac invest-

ments in order to create a new socius which could act as a subject

group. But, very quickly, this newly established socius becomes




subjugated to its own interests and aims and, in this way, startsfunctioning as a subjugated group, forming its new hierarchies,apparatuses of power, and creating its new codes. At this moment, theunconscious paranoiac investments become preconscious and takethe shape of aggressive nationalism. For example, on 11 March 2011,the day of the re-establisment of independence in Lithuania wascelebrated by an officially sanctioned, neo-fascist demonstration,whose activists carried the slogans "Lithuania for Lithuanians", and"Lithuania-natiory homeland, race,,. I think it is not a coincidencethat a neo-fascist demonstration appears on Independence Day,

because it expresses the paranoiac investments of the nation-state. Itis important to stress that the neo-fascist demonstration was sanc-tioned by the state authorities. At the same time, the same authoritieswere trying to ban the Baltic Pride demonstration on May 2010. Thepermission to organise the demonstration was given only a few hoursbefore the demonstration actually had to take place (and only afternumerous warnings from the EU). In the end, the Baltic pride demon-stration took place, and even if there were more poricemen than gay

and lesbian activists, the activists were still attacked by members ofparliament Here we can speak not only about the unconscious, butalso about preconscious paranoia: in this case, the nation-state itself}*ritilgryllgling as an

-alch"als..jl*eGuatari point ouf paranoiac inveitments try to ie-establish what theycall the molar: if the schizophrenic investments correspond to molec-ular flows which transversally cross defined territories and subvertestablished norms, then molar or paranoid investments correspond totraditional, conservative social norms,

trying to protect defined terri-tories such as the nation, family, or race. In this case, the nationalistinterests and aims, which carried a revolutionary character in 1990,now are converted into fascist slogans, celebrating the nation, home-land, and race. By contrast, the revolutionary events in 2009 did notformulate any revolutionary rhetoric. It signalled the break within thesocius itself and the emergence of the multitude. The multitude';lrevolution aimed to undo the unitary notion of the nation, and the Irhetoric of patriotism and ethnic fanaticism, which actually

*"u.,. {the eternal debt to capital and a total subjection to the logic of axiom- tatization.__)A second example, which is also linked to a specific territory,

again shows the differences between1990 and the recent moment. In



124 NATIoNALISM AND THE BoDY Pollrlc

2010, Lithuania was celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the

re-establishment of independence. For this occasion, an artist, Tadas

Gutauskas, suggested that he create a special monument to commem-orate the twenty years of Lithuanian independence. This monument,

called ,,The way of freedom", consists of a brick wall coloured like the

national flag. Everyone who wanted to support the building of the

monument could buy a brick with his or her name written on it. This

d,eqifqlg g d the ryall seems like the ironic rgversal of the gvqn$l4^i990, *hi"h "iiii"a ..i,iifi the falldf.the Beriin wail in iOp2 By contrast,

[h?iGc-eni"fro;*#"t *pii:sents not only the paranoiac drive to reter-

ritorializeand redefine a territory, but also is the perfect realisation of

capitalist logic: you can celebrate freedom by buying a brick and

taking your plr.u in a nationalist columbarium. More surprising is the

fact that this "columbarium of freedom" was initiated by a generation

who used to sing (together with Pink Floyd) about being just another

brick in the wall.This last example reveals the ambivalent nature of any revolution-

ary movement as well as the functioning of the capitalist machine. As

Holland points out, caPitalism

is ambivalent: it borrows paranoia from despotism . . . in conjunction

with its drive to reterritorialize and recode; yet at the same time itpromotes schizophrenia in its inevitable propensity to deterritorialize

and decode. And it earns its inaugural position in universal history on

the side of decoding and schizophrenia . . . (Holland 2003, p' 94)

The revolution is needed to create a new socius, a new territory, a new

code, but as soon aS new territories are taken Qver, the capitalistmachine starts functioning as an apparatus of power, trying to subju-gate revolutionaries to its control. As Holland points out,

whereas capitalist ambivalence combines the freedom of economics

with the tyranny of power, Permanent revolution eliminates Powerand paranoia in order to give free play to schizophrenia and enable

molecular investments of desire to prevail over moiar ones. (Holland,

2003, p. 95)

Although Deleuze and Guattari believe in the revolutionary potentialof capitalism, in a paradoxical way, revolution does not eliminate

capitalism as an economic formatiory but gives a "second breath" to

\iI

nationalism and the body politic

Documents