Skip to main content
placeholder image

The Little Hans Assemblage

Journal Article


Abstract


  • There is no straightforward way to say to what schizoanalysis is. It can’t even be

    said that it is wholly opposed to psychoanalysis. In fact, Deleuze and Guattari only

    offer to re-engineer psychoanalysis, not repudiate it or replace it. The problem

    isn’t so much that the question isn’t answered by Deleuze and Guattari or that it is

    somehow unanswerable; rather, the problem is that it has several answers. Unwilling

    to provide any kind of “formula” or “model” that would enable us to simply

    “do” schizoanalysis as a tick-box exercise in which everything relates inexorably

    to one single factor (e.g., the family), which is what they thought psychoanalysis

    had become, Deleuze and Guattari observe a quite deliberate strategy of providing

    multiple answers to the questions their work raises. Deleuze and Guattari’s

    elaborate system of new terms and concepts is of a piece with this strategy of

    providing multiple answers to basic questions and should be seen as deliberately

    guarding against the reductive tendencies of the “practically-minded.” This isn’t to

    say schizoanalysis is either incoherent or impractical, as many of its detractors are

    quick to claim, but to insist that its practice cannot be divorced from its theory

    and that to engage with one, it is necessary to engage with the other.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Buchanan, I. M. (2013). The Little Hans Assemblage. Visual Arts Research, 39 (1), 9-17.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/730

Number Of Pages


  • 8

Start Page


  • 9

End Page


  • 17

Volume


  • 39

Issue


  • 1

Place Of Publication


  • http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/visuartsrese.39.1.0009

Abstract


  • There is no straightforward way to say to what schizoanalysis is. It can’t even be

    said that it is wholly opposed to psychoanalysis. In fact, Deleuze and Guattari only

    offer to re-engineer psychoanalysis, not repudiate it or replace it. The problem

    isn’t so much that the question isn’t answered by Deleuze and Guattari or that it is

    somehow unanswerable; rather, the problem is that it has several answers. Unwilling

    to provide any kind of “formula” or “model” that would enable us to simply

    “do” schizoanalysis as a tick-box exercise in which everything relates inexorably

    to one single factor (e.g., the family), which is what they thought psychoanalysis

    had become, Deleuze and Guattari observe a quite deliberate strategy of providing

    multiple answers to the questions their work raises. Deleuze and Guattari’s

    elaborate system of new terms and concepts is of a piece with this strategy of

    providing multiple answers to basic questions and should be seen as deliberately

    guarding against the reductive tendencies of the “practically-minded.” This isn’t to

    say schizoanalysis is either incoherent or impractical, as many of its detractors are

    quick to claim, but to insist that its practice cannot be divorced from its theory

    and that to engage with one, it is necessary to engage with the other.

Publication Date


  • 2013

Citation


  • Buchanan, I. M. (2013). The Little Hans Assemblage. Visual Arts Research, 39 (1), 9-17.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/730

Number Of Pages


  • 8

Start Page


  • 9

End Page


  • 17

Volume


  • 39

Issue


  • 1

Place Of Publication


  • http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/visuartsrese.39.1.0009