Chaosophy - autonomous learning

explosions that will elude the comprehension of politicians and
social scientists alike. So calling into question the division of fields
of study, questioning as well the self-satisfied air of psychoanalysts,
linguists, ethnologists, pedagogues, all of this means not dissolving
their various sciences, but rather deepening them, making them
worthy of their objects. A whole series of research projects conducted
before May '68 by small, privileged groups have been brought to
bear on these questions, have been placed at the top of the agenda
in the wake of the institutional revolution of that Spring. Psychoanalysts
are more and more inserted into various debates, they
must enlarge their scope more and more, and the same applies to
psychiatrists. It's a completely new phenomenon. What does it
mean Is it a question of fashion, or, as certain political currents
assert, is it a way of deflecting militant revolutionaries from their
goals Or is it rather a call, albeit confused, for a profound revision of
our conceptual system of today
Could psychiatry take on . the role 0/ the new human science, the
human science par excellence, so to speak
Felix Guattari: Rather than psychiatry why not schizophrenics,
the mad people themselves I don't believe that those who work in
the field of psychiatry, at least at this moment, are really the ones
in the avant-garde.
Gilles De1euze: Furthermore, there's no reason why psychiatry
rather than another discipline should become the human science
par excellence. The notion of a "human science par excellence" is
not a good one. Bibliophilia could be the human science par excellence,
or-why not-the science of texts could take that position.
The fact is that too many sciences would wish to have the role.
The problem is not to figure out which is supposed to be the
60 ;'