Chaosophy - autonomous learning

on the express condition that no one will question the status of the
family, of the school, etc.
If a psychoanalyst wanted to stop being an accomplice, if he wanted to
bring about this rupture you mentioned, what should he do Your book
gives an answer-perhaps not a completely satisfying one-to this question:
one must "de-Oedipianize" psychoanalysis, replace it by another
institutional practice conceived as an attempt to break down the familialism
of traditional psychoanalysis and create a completely different
psychoanalytical practice. But is it sufficient, in the context of the system,
to avoid giving a hand to authority and repression Is this "de­
Oedipianization" of psychoanalysis possible, is it possible without a total
revolution of psychoanalysis and of the institutional framework of
psychiatry, which, as one of the authors of The Kursbuch Number 28
concerning "the misery of the psyche" very correctly points out, continues
to fight mental illness by repressing the patient How does Anti-Oedipus
operate in this perspective and what can "schizoanalysis" do here
The problem once again is to avoid considering the institutions of
psychiatry and psychoanalysis as confined arenas. We remain in
some sort of "social objectity" as if there were a particular battle to
fight with the workers in the factories, another in hospitals with the
sick, yet another in the University with the students, etc . ... We
must question this "containing-contained" approach of institutions
which are supposed to be filled with people. Sociologists and technocrats
see things that way. The problem of the University-we
certainly found out in May '68-is not the students and the professors;
it is the problem of the entire society inasmuch as it
involves the relationship between the transmission of knowledge,
the training of executives, the desire of the masses, the requirements
of industry, and, finally, everything which could intermingle
in the setting of the University. What was the magnificent answer
,/ 143