Deleuze and The Symptom
This is a call for papers for a special issue of the journal
Deleuze Studies
entitled 'Deleuze and the Symptom'.
Guest edited by Aidan Tynan.
Some of the most influential theoretical contributions of the last several decades have sought to formulate the relationship between the body and its symbolic environments through the concept of the symptom. Perhaps the most influential of these was Lacan's conception of speech
and desire, in which the symptom, as signifier, discloses a set of meanings which disturb conscious discourse, while Althusser’s symptomatic reading of Marx offered a means to bypass vulgar economist and historicist versions of Marxist theory.
More recently, the symptom has figured prominently in Žižek’s unique
brand of ideology critique, while Althusserian symptomatic reading has been employed in Jameson’s literary criticism to overcome the antinomies of structure and history. This issue of Deleuze Studies is concerned with Deleuze’s position in relation to these debates. Much of Deleuze’s work, particularly the essays collected in his final book Critique et Clinique, was influenced by Nietzsche’s conviction that philosophy should proceed as a diagnosis of culture. This is complicated by Deleuze and Guattari’s apparent repudiation of psychoanalysis and exaltation of the schizophrenic as the supreme cultural icon of our time.
Some of the questions which this issue seeks to address are: what is the relation of Deleuze’s highly formalist conception of critique as symptomatology to the practice of schizoanalysis, and how does this position Deleuze’s work with respect to the debates mentioned above? Is there a specifically Deleuzian conception of the symptom? What roles do the pathological and pathos play in Deleuze’s thought and politics? What is the significance of Deleuze’s insistence on the criterion of “great health”, and the fact that schizoanalysis is presented as therapeutic?
and desire, in which the symptom, as signifier, discloses a set of meanings which disturb conscious discourse, while Althusser’s symptomatic reading of Marx offered a means to bypass vulgar economist and historicist versions of Marxist theory.
More recently, the symptom has figured prominently in Žižek’s unique
brand of ideology critique, while Althusserian symptomatic reading has been employed in Jameson’s literary criticism to overcome the antinomies of structure and history. This issue of Deleuze Studies is concerned with Deleuze’s position in relation to these debates. Much of Deleuze’s work, particularly the essays collected in his final book Critique et Clinique, was influenced by Nietzsche’s conviction that philosophy should proceed as a diagnosis of culture. This is complicated by Deleuze and Guattari’s apparent repudiation of psychoanalysis and exaltation of the schizophrenic as the supreme cultural icon of our time.
Some of the questions which this issue seeks to address are: what is the relation of Deleuze’s highly formalist conception of critique as symptomatology to the practice of schizoanalysis, and how does this position Deleuze’s work with respect to the debates mentioned above? Is there a specifically Deleuzian conception of the symptom? What roles do the pathological and pathos play in Deleuze’s thought and politics? What is the significance of Deleuze’s insistence on the criterion of “great health”, and the fact that schizoanalysis is presented as therapeutic?
Please submit papers of between 5,000 – 10,000 words to
atynan@gmail.com by no later than December 20th, 2009.
1 comments:
could you please help us to advertise this event? HUGE THANKS
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/phil-lit/conference/
Post a Comment