There’s always a political motive behind any misinterpretation. I’m considering a very political problem, like Burroughs with drugs: Can you harness the power of drugs without them taking over, without turning into a dazed zombie? It’s the same with schizophrenia. ‘I’ make a distinction between schizophrenia as a process and the way schizophrenics are produced as clinical cases that need hospitalising—it’s almost the same thing in reverse.
What connects schizoanalysts is an attempt to uproot from the social’s causes and traditions in order to conduct physical exoduses from the ideological territories that have harboured us through much of our previous lives. ‘I’ strive for heightened degrees of empathy and perception—to focus ‘my’ gaze on something and tease out the intangible in it—an intangible that transforms something within each of us.
I’m not saying revolutionaries are schizophrenics. I’m saying there’s a schizoid process, of decoding and deterritorialising, which only revolutionary activity can stop from turning into the production of capitalist paranoia. I’m considering a problem to do with the close link between the reproduction of capitalism on the one hand, and between revolutionary movements on the other. Schizoanalysts can talk in terms of capitalist anxiety and revolutionary schizophrenia because we’re not setting out from a psychiatric-neoliberal understanding of these concepts, but rather from their social and political determinations—determinations from which their clinical application only follows in specific institutional circumstances.
It’s not a question of being this or that sort of human, but of becoming inhuman, of a universal animal becoming—not seeing human-beings merely as another animal, but unravelling our body’s human organisation, exploring this or that zone of bodily intensity, with everybody discovering their own particular zones, and the groups, populations, and species that inhibit them. Becoming ‘itself’ has no fixed identity or being. It is always becoming-other. Alteration rather than alternation, pure difference rather than repetition, multiple becomings rather than a single, centralised, unitary standard of becoming.
Becomings have no history—a non-history constantly breaking out of the repressive inscription or encoding of the multiple lines within a unitary development. So who’s to say ‘I’ can’t talk about medicine unless I’m a doctor, if I talk about it like a fish? Who’s to stop me talking about drugs without being an addict if ‘I’ talk about them like a bird? And why should’t ‘I’ invent some way, however fantastic and contrived, of talking about something without someone having to ask whether I’m qualified to talk like that under the parameters of the vapid credentialism of the control society?
Schizoanalysis—and by extension, this schizo-stroll—has one single aim: To get revolutionary, artistic, and performative machines working together as parts, cogs, of one another. To embark on a schizo-stroll is to leave the furrow, to go ‘off the rails,’ and wander in imagination and thought—meanings, images, and so on float in a dream of dis-logic rather than calmly following from one to another along the familiar lines or tracks of cold reason. That’s what the subsequent schizo-strolls are most interested in—the revolutionary schism, the rupture of neoliberal subjugation, the splitting off into post-capitalist worlds.
Feel free to use them as ‘you’ see fit (and/or unfit)…
may 2016, on becoming-phenomenological
june 2016, on a radical happiness
july 2016, on reading with love