/lit/ - Literature

>>16893042
>"and when healing means oedipalizing, one understands the frightened jump of the invalid, who "doesnt want to get healed" and treats the female analytic like an ally of the family and finally as an ally of the police."

Don't have the full context, but basically D&G are against the idea that the psychoanlyst's role must be to oedipalize those who weren't properly oedipalized, that is to say to become a kind of father figure inducing, without explicitly suggesting, a kind of order (ordinary everyday content neurosis) into the analyzand (the patient, called that because he analyzes himself guided by the analyst, who is the psychoanalyst). They complain that psychoanalysis (and maybe cognitive behavioural or psychiatric therapy as well even if the first didn't exist at the time as such) becomes a tool of power. Their example is of a woman who tells her psychoanalyst that she protested the Vietnam war with her friend Rene only to be asked what she thinks about rebirth (rene) to get her to talk about her mother. It negates the social in favor of the personal as if it could only ever be a familial issue (in the unconscious of the patient). The properly political thus becomes just a personal delirium. Feel that your job is meaningless and the world is getting worse? Well take some pills and adjust your cognitive and behavioural patterns (try not to think about anything that upsets you) and you too could someday hope to have an ordinary boring life! Obviously this isn't the only way to go, but it's always a risk with all forms of therapy.

Also, it's debatable how much this applies to Lacan since he had his own ideas of what could be achieved if the subject overcomes its symptoms. But it's also true that he had a certain conservative side, although the French were insanely radical at the time so maybe it's just by contrast.