Lacan and Deleuze: A Disjunctive Synthesis
Few rifts in contemporary Continental thought can appear as insurmountable as that between Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze: the former a psychoanalyst and self-professed ‘anti-philosopher’, the latter a strident critic of the psychoanalytic clinic and major philosophical figure. Although there have been attempts to counteract this reductive interpretation, it retains its power and influence through the work of some of Deleuze’s and Lacan’s most renowned present-day disciples. Alain Badiou and Slavoi Žižek have each in their own way seen it necessary to take on Deleuze, Hegelianising him, declawing him, and bringing him into their respective orbits. On the obverse side, few Deleuzian scholars have sought to engage seriously with Lacanian texts and psychoanalysis. After all, hadn’t the polemic of Anti-Oedipus (1972/2000) killed psychoanalysis once and for all? Is not Lacan the thinker of lack and castration? And are not psychoanalysts little more than priests in new get-up?...
- Deleuze, G. (2004a) Logic of Sense. Translated by C.V. Boundas, M. Lester and C.J. Stivale. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
- Deleuze, G. (2004b) How do we recognize structuralism? In: D. Lapoujade (ed.) Desert Islands and Other Texts, 1953–1974. Translated by M. Taormina. Semiotext(e). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 170–192.Google Scholar
- Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1972/2000) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by R. Hurley, M. Seem and H.R. Lane. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar