A few ideas from yesterday, following a discussion with Susana:
In the ‘Presentation’ Fourquet/Murard contrast the tendency for some, post 1968, to depart for the Cévennes to set up rural communities on a pre-capitalist artisanal model, with the will, within CERFI, to experiment with urban community fully embedded in the capitalist mode of production etc. It strikes me then that the geography of CERFI’s different locations is an important factor in this ‘urban community’; the location of the CERFI office is thus important, and the distribution of the participants’ apartments – Boulevard Beaumarchais, Rue Baudricourt etc.
One of the questions posed by our discussion yesterday revolved around the extent to which the CERFI/Genealogy group, the ‘toupie folle’ ‘succeeded’, or not, in what they refer to as a group analytic practice; in other words did their response to this, or the response to it, extend beyond a consciousness and and recording of the consciousness of the conflicts and ‘rapports de force’ which came to light? Was there an ‘analytic practice’ of the kind that was exercised at La Borde, for example? If so, what did it look like. One way of thinking about this is to conceive of the ‘widening out’ of individual problems or issues to more global issues in the socius, in the light of the deleuzeguattari idea of desire being directly plugged into the socius (i.e. bracketing the family). It’s true that in the ‘interventions militantes’ there is nothing really in the way of oedipanization. Problems and conflicts are written as symptoms of wider social conflicts or relations of force. Another way of asking this is to ask if transversality, seen as a displacement of the threshold assumptions of the super-ego (acc. to Guattari) was in operation?
There are no notes linking to this note.