| dc.description.abstract | In Anti-Oedipus (1972), Deleuze and Guattari make original critical analyses of
psychoanalysis, and offer theoretical and practical proposals for the problems they identify in
the Freudian legacy. However, the aggressive written and the peculiar style of this venture do
not attract the readers interested in psychoanalysis, and this polemical book is commonly
confused with a project of destruction and overcoming of psychoanalysis. The result is that,
so far, it is still not clear whether - or how - the conceptual formulation developed by these
authors can offer contributions to the psychoanalytic field, and few is discussed about the
importance and relevance of this critical proposal. The dialogue between this work and
psychoanalysis is usually exempted, unless when you intend to reaffirm their opposition. It
occurs that Anti-Oedipus maintains an ambiguous relationship with psychoanalysis, in that it
does not cease to rely on central aspects of Freudian thought in its proposal to overcome the
limitations and anachronisms of psychoanalysis. Indeed, the authors seek to devise an
immanent and productive unconscious which is inconsistent with too expensive notions of
psychoanalysis. On the other hand, the economic register of the Freudian unconscious is
highly valued in this project, and the concepts of desiring-machine and body without organs,
for example, are curiously articulated with the drives theory. Therefore, in this dissertation,
we sought to present Anti-Oedipus considering that the authors also worked with the
psychoanalysis, from a positive and specific resumption of the Freudian drives theory.
Initially, we present this work through the concepts of desiring-machine and body without
organs, advancing in their specific theses and identifying the assumptions involved in its
construction. Then, we made some joints between these concepts and the Freud s drives
theory, not suggesting that they are similar, but identifying the imposed questions to
psychoanalysis from indications of Deleuze and Guattari. After this, it was found that these
authors held a reading of the drives theory to compose the concepts of Anti-Oedipus, which is
inseparable from a singular theoretical construction, where other problems and issues are
being placed. We saw that his concept about the unconscious really goes beyond
psychoanalysis, not because the beats, but because it is not limited to addressing
psychoanalytical issues, much less is based only on freudian written to be forged. Thus, less
than an iconoclast work, Anti-Oedipus emerges as a legitimate and vigorous enterprise in its
investigation of the unconscious and the desire, where it is used to recommence alternatives
lines witch born of psychoanalysis itself, through a complex preparation. The joints that we
indicate and begin to explore here, are recognized as new possibilities of the reading of
psychoanalysis, without, however, being reduced to this, but considered from its specific
position. | |
