International Colloquium
30 Oct - 1 Nov 2009
Institute of Romance Studies at Humboldt University Berlin, Germany

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cameron Ellis (Brock University, St. Catherine's, Canada)
Deleuze-in-Process: Kristeva and the Psychoanalysis of the Abject

            Art, along with science and language among others, is often considered the greatest expression of what it is to be human. In the passed few decades anthropologists and psychologists have become interested in “paintings” created by other primates (fingers painting and so on). Specialists in the field have analyzed these productions and advanced arguments that call into question the traditional western metaphysical definitions of what it is to be human. What is it about painting (music and other media notwithstanding) that captivates our attention as intimately tied to our subjectivity? Megan Craig writes that "Depression and melancholia have an intimate relationship with imagination and sublimation"(P.21). Although art can be described as joyful and pleasing, I think there is a qualitatively different affect art reaches with respect to how we perceive ourselves as subjects.
            For the greater part of western history, the image of the body of Christ (regardless if he be crucified on the cross, dead in the tomb, or as a child in the arms of his Mother) has provided many with an outlet for identification. In the passed many strove to emulate the persona that Christ represented; some because of oppressive regimes other for genuine reasons. In any case, the point that is that many have internalized the painted images of Christ as models for their own life. Thus I feel it is reasonable to claim that Chirst, as portrayed in painting, has been important for how individuals understand their subjectivity.
The ‘Anti-Oedipal’ philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari has become quite influential in providing an alternative account of what constitutes the construction of subjectivity. It also is the case that very rarely is their philosophy ever examined alongside that of Kristeva’s. Kristeva was once asked in an interview why she chose not to follow Deleuze when Anti-Oedipus was published in 1972, opting instead to pursue psychoanalytic training by undergoing therapy in 1973? Aside from replying that she was in fact receptive to Deleuze’s anarchism as well as considering him to be perhaps the most original and radical of contemporary philosophers, she nonetheless defended the indispensible nature of the Father (both as a source and inhibitor of desire) that Deleuze rejects. Kristeva defends her position encouraging us to “look at those crowds at World Youth days in search of a good father, kneeling before the Pope who enables millions of people…to “fix fatherhood.”