From Deleuze’s essay “Three Group-Related Problems” — which is a preface to one of Guattari’s books — in Desert Islands and Other Texts.
At this point in the essay, Deleuze is thinking about the relationship between psychoanalysis and revolutionary politics in Guattari’s writing. D&G do not think psyschoanalysis should be applied to groups, nor that there is a therapeutic group that should be tasked with treating the masses. Rather:
“It’s about constituting in the group the conditions of an analysis of desire, for oneself and for others; it’s about pursuing flows that constitute myriad lines of flight in capitalist society, and bringing about ruptures, imposing interruptions at the very heart of social determinism and historical causality; it’s about allowing collective agents of enunciation to emerge, capable of formulating new utterances of desire; it’s about constituting not an avant-garde, but groups adjacent to social processes, whose only task is to advance a truth along paths it usually never takes – in a word, it’s about constituting a revolutionary subjectivity about which there is no more reason ask whether libidinal, economic, or political determinations should come first, since this subjectivity traverses traditionally separate orders; it’s about grasping that point of rupture where, precisely, political economy and libidinal economy are one and the same.”
I constantly read D&G and think what they are proffering in terms of politics is an individual project of self-preparation, and a collective process of assemblage, but here I’m hung up on the part in bold above. I’m inclined to read this as a revolutionary politics for those — like myself — who are not engaged in any sort of direct action. Such a reading seems to create a radical political space for academics who see their role in a classroom or in print, rather than in a public square. The obvious question here is, “is this enough?” and as I seek out a political normativity for my work, I’m constantly asking myself that very question.