Schizoanalytic Ventures at the End of

the World: Film, Video, Art, and

Pedagogical Challenges Jan
Jagodzinski
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/schizoanalytic-ventures-at-the-end-of-the-world-film-vi
deo-art-and-pedagogical-challenges-jan-jagodzinski/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

What Is Art Education?: After Deleuze and Guattari 1st

Edition Jan Jagodzinski (Ed.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/what-is-art-education-after-
deleuze-and-guattari-1st-edition-jan-jagodzinski-ed/

The Museum at the End of the World First Edition

Metcalf

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-museum-at-the-end-of-the-
world-first-edition-metcalf/

Pedagogical Explorations in a Posthuman Age: Essays on

Designer Capitalism, Eco-Aestheticism, and Visual and
Popular Culture as West-East Meet Jan Jagodzinski

https://textbookfull.com/product/pedagogical-explorations-in-a-
posthuman-age-essays-on-designer-capitalism-eco-aestheticism-and-
visual-and-popular-culture-as-west-east-meet-jan-jagodzinski/
Intercultural Education Folklore and the Pedagogical
Thought of Rachel Davis DuBois Jan Rosenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/intercultural-education-
folklore-and-the-pedagogical-thought-of-rachel-davis-dubois-jan-
rosenberg/

The Technique of Film and Video Editing 6th Edition Ken

Dancyger

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-technique-of-film-and-video-
editing-6th-edition-ken-dancyger/

The PhD At The End Of The World Provocations For The

Doctorate And A Future Contested Robyn Barnacle

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-phd-at-the-end-of-the-world-
provocations-for-the-doctorate-and-a-future-contested-robyn-
barnacle/

Lizards of Patagonia Diversity Systematics Biogeography

and Biology of the Reptiles at the End of the World
Mariana Morando

https://textbookfull.com/product/lizards-of-patagonia-diversity-
systematics-biogeography-and-biology-of-the-reptiles-at-the-end-
of-the-world-mariana-morando/

The Precarious Future of Education: Risk and

Uncertainty in Ecology, Curriculum, Learning, and
Technology 1st Edition Jan Jagodzinski (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-precarious-future-of-
education-risk-and-uncertainty-in-ecology-curriculum-learning-
and-technology-1st-edition-jan-jagodzinski-eds/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EDUCATIONAL FUTURES

Schizoanalytic
Ventures at the
End of the World
Film, Video, Art, and
Pedagogical Challenges
jan jagodzinski
Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures

Series Editor
jan jagodzinski
Department of Secondary Education
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada
The series Educational Futures would be a call on all aspects of education,
not only specific subject specialist, but policy makers, religious education
leaders, curriculum theorists, and those involved in shaping the educational
imagination through its foundations and both psychoanalytical and psycho-
logical investments with youth to address this extraordinary precarity and
anxiety that is continually rising as things do not get better but worsen. A
global de-territorialization is taking place, and new voices and visions need
to be seen and heard. The series would address the following questions and
concerns. The three key signifiers of the book series title address this state of
risk and emergency:

The Anthropocene: The ‘human world,’ the world-for-us is drifting

1. 
toward a global situation where human extinction is not out of the
question due to economic industrialization and overdevelopment,
as well as the exponential growth of global population. How to we
address this ecologically and educationally to still make a difference?
Ecology: What might be ways of re-thinking our relationships with the
2. 
non-human forms of existence and in-human forms of artificial intel-
ligence that have emerged? Are there possibilities to rework the eco-
logical imagination educationally from its over-romanticized view of
Nature, as many have argued: Nature and culture are no longer tenable
separate signifiers. Can teachers and professors address the ideas that
surround differentiated subjectivity where agency is no long attributed
to the ‘human’ alone?
Aesthetic Imaginaries: What are the creative responses that can fabu-
3. 
late aesthetic imaginaries that are viable in specific contexts where the
emergent ideas, which are able to gather heterogeneous elements
together to present projects that address the two former descriptors: the
Anthropocene and the every changing modulating ecologies. Can edu-
cators drawn on these aesthetic imaginaries to offer exploratory hope for
what is a changing globe that is in constant crisis?

The series Educational Futures: Anthropocene, Ecology, and Aesthetic

Imaginaries attempts to secure manuscripts that are aware of the precarity
that reverberates throughout all life, and attempts to explore and experiment
to develop an educational imagination which, at the very least, makes con-
scious what is a dire situation.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15418
 jan jagodzinski

Schizoanalytic
Ventures at the End
of the World
Film, Video, Art, and Pedagogical Challenges
jan jagodzinski
Department of Secondary Education
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB, Canada

Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures

ISBN 978-3-030-12366-6 ISBN 978-3-030-12367-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12367-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930289

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Ron Wigglesworth

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 This book is dedicated to
Ron, Bill, Jean, Izabella
Whose support, conversations, and laughter
I have had the pleasure to share.
Diane, Cathryn, Adriana, Ji-Hye
For their support in friendship.
and
To my dear friend Olenka
Who is always there when there is a need.
‘hugs’ to you All
 Contents

1 Introduction: Schizoanalytic Ventures 1

Part I Filmic Ventures

2 Schizo Times in Cinematic Thought 29

3 Repeating The Butterfly Effect: Schizo Endings 43

4 Migrant Subjectivity and Territory Rethought 67

5 The Schizos of The Broken Circle Breakdown 81

6 Dreamland Welcomes You: Last Resort 95

7 The Batman Trilogy: An Ethics of Evil, the Law,

and the Rise of Trump’s Fascism in the USA 117

Part II Ventures in Video Games, Art and Pedagogy

8 The Prosthetics of Video Games 149

vii
viii    Contents

9 Between War and Edutainment 167

10 Explorations of the Analog-Digital: In Relation

to the Event of the Artistic Process 183

11 Artistic Speculations and Pedagogical Challenges:

Facing the Anthropocene 201

Index 227
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Schizoanalytic Ventures

The title, Schizoanalytic Ventures At the End of the World: Film, Video,
Art, and Pedagogy, addresses the state of affairs in what is a precarious
condition for our species living on the Earth, in terms of both an eco-
logical crisis and a political crisis that shape contemporary global dynam-
ics. While ‘end of the world’ sounds very dramatic, it is a call from the
future that casts its shadow on us today. This call is a warning as to a final
end that is projected if and when the Earth no longer becomes habita-
ble; at the same time, it is also a call to the growing and overwhelming
conditions that are giving rise to neo-fascism and its consequent dicta-
torships that are springing around the globe in various degrees of force,
held together by populist politics that have enabled such a condition to
emerge. As many have noted, democracies that shaped modernist think-
ing are failing, as a very small percent of the population is able to manip-
ulate the political scene, supported by wealthy business interests. In both
these senses, a suicidal course has been charted. As Deleuze and Guattari
write in Anti-Oedipus: ‘the most disadvantaged, the most excluded
members of society invest with passion the system that oppresses them,
and they always find an interest in it, since it is there that they search for
and measure it’ (A-O, 346).
Schizoanalysis comes from the process philosophy of Deleuze and
Guattari, which interrogates the global capitalist economic formation by
exploring the dynamics of its ongoing formations and transformations.

© The Author(s) 2019 1

j. jagodzinski, Schizoanalytic Ventures at the End of the World,
Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12367-3_1
2 J. JAGODZINSKI

It addresses the state of the global precarity that fluctuates between

the capitalist poles of paranoia and schizophrenia. Both tendencies pull
together and apart in every socius where the pretense to socialist democ-
racy prevails as ennobled by a social justice agenda, yet capitalism sets
the parameters for such a promising agenda. Schizophrenia is, by and
large, a creative endeavor, both as a formation of the psyche and in its
resistance to the socius (the set principles of the social order). It offers
a form of ‘unlimited semiosis’ that unhinges fixed meanings; Deleuze
and Guattari identify with such an orientation as a source of transform-
ative change. Given that the marketplace is driven by profit motivations
based on stochastic quantitative analysis, a nation’s bottom line as to
its health/wealth is calculated via employment statistics, GNP growth,
stock market indicators, import-export calculations, and so forth, such
an ‘objective’ tendency of measurement overrides any meaning and belief
system that lays claims to its foundation. Religious orientations fall into
line in support, be they evangelical Christians in the USA, Hinduism in
India, and the rise of Political Islam in Turkey where Islam and capital-
ism are reconciled. The ‘American dream’ is based on this fundamental
economic tenet that is written on its currency: ‘in God we Trust.’ This
schizophrenic side of capitalism enables a perpetual deterritorialization
and decoding, a dismantling takes place so that new markets are always
opening up, while others are shutting down. Global trade and expan-
sion work on such a principle. The limits of this seem unlimited, except
now that resources are becoming scare for future survival. New systems
of currency are developing (cryptocurrencies) like bitcoin that claim to
circumvent state and the central banking system to open up new venture
capital—‘in Digital We Trust.’ Algorithmic computing and encryption
software become potentially new forms to measure wealth, shifting to
immaterial currencies and credit money.
On the other side of the ledger is paranoia—the resurgence of
neo-fascist propensities in democratic states, which we are witnessing
on a global scale; a retreat into protectionism, an attempt to control all
meaning, a libidinal economy of capitalist desire based on lack as Lacan
had argued, manifested via commodity forms. The return is to a mythical
past, to traditionalism, to wall building, and a delineation of us-and-them
mentality played along psychological, ideological, and material lines. It
is thoroughly despotic—there is a growing list of dictators and author-
itarian personalities: Trump (USA), Putin (Russia), Xi Jinping (China),
Erdoğan (Turkey), Duterte (Philippines), Orbán (Hungry), Duda
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 3

(Poland), Salvini (Italy), Maduro (Venezuela), Ortega (Nicaragua), Kim

(North Korea), Netanyahu (Israel), and Bashar al-Assad (Syria); few
countries seem exempt from this paranoiac wave. If schizophrenia is the
dynamic of a permanent revolution to open more territory for profit,
then paranoia is the archaic residue, its inertia, a propaganda machine
based on centered modes of social organization governed by the pomp,
display of extravagance, military might, lies, and a justice and military
department working for whoever is in charge.
Deleuze and Guattari differentiate different kinds of group forma-
tions: ‘subject–groups’ and ‘subjugated groups.’ Each is libidinally
invested in these two poles: schizophrenia and paranoia. Subject groups
are characterized by their investment in schizophrenic forms of ‘pro-
gress,’ while subjugated groups invest their preconscious affects by fol-
lowing paranoid forms of closure. This is never a simple either-or. In
capitalist formations, ambivalence manifests itself that combines the
freedom of economic production (an affirmative force), along with the
tyranny of despotic power (a negative force). Deleuze and Guattari’s
schizoanalytic project is to forward what they see as a ‘permanent revo-
lution.’ By this, they mean an attempt to eliminate power and paranoia
to enable schizophrenic free play, a form of delirium that releases ‘life’ in
ways that has been entrapped by what they call ‘molar’ investments, the
prevailing social norms that support ‘gregarity’ or ‘herd instinct.’ This
refers back to the paradox mentioned earlier as to why desire and pas-
sion for one’s own oppression can come about: Desire and interests do
not always line up, but can be at odds with one another: Unconscious
libidinal investment (desire) precedes, and then interest follows. As
they succinctly write: ‘The schizoanalytic argument is simple. Desire is
a machine, a synthesis of machines, a machine arrangement—desiring-
machines. The order of desire is the order of production: all desire is at
once desiring-production and social-production’ (A-O, 325, emphasis in
the original).
The fourth part of Anti-Oedipus is entitled, ‘Introduction to
Schizoanalysis.’ It is Deleuze and Guattari’s rambling attempt to provide
an outline for such an endeavor. Reading this section presents difficulties
for any reader, just like the book itself. In 1982, I travelled to New York
for a conference. Having a strong interest in Lacanian psychoanalysis,
I had read that Anti-Oedipus was a must read as it offered a ‘critique’ of
psychoanalysis. New York, as is well known, is famous for its bookstores,
or was so at the time. I did find the book, which I still own. The physical
4 J. JAGODZINSKI

joy that went into finding it still lingers (like this memory). There was no
Internet available at the time, no Amazon with its instant reach to what-
ever book you want or can afford. I had to search for it from bookstore
to bookstore. The cover still remains vivid: the title spread over what
looks like broad-brush strokes of purple water paint. First, published in
1977 by Viking press in New York, I recall opening it up, seeing the pic-
ture on its inside cover (Boy with Machine, Richard Lindner 1954), and
then eagerly trying to consume its first few pages. The effort was short-
lived; I had no idea what (the hell) I was reading. I had no way into it.
It did not speak to me. I closed its covers and put it on my bookshelf to
collect dust before it was to be reawakened yet again.
Since then, I have no idea as to the extent which I have been able to
find my way back into its mysteries that were hermetically sealed from
me back then. Along the way, I found out that Deleuze and Guattari
had not made a complete break with Lacan; their critique was cleverly
disguised without disparaging the master (Dosse 2010). A more com-
plete break was to come with the publication of their second volume
to Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Thousand Plateaus. The chapters that
follow are my way of addressing the difficulties with schizoanalysis. I
am under no illusion that these ‘ventures’ are on the mark, as they say,
and take solace with the following review of a number of well-known
Deleuzians who have addressed ‘what is schizoanalysis?’ I start there and
then return to what I think I have tried to do in this book in answer to
that distant but vivid memory.

Exploring ‘What Is Schizoanalysis?’

Ian Buchanan is a central figure in Deleuze and Guattari Studies, in
both the journal and the founder of an annual international conference
and ‘Deleuze camp’ that explores the ‘applications’ of both Deleuze
and Guattari to various aspects of the social order and the arts. The
successful book series, Deleuze Connections published by Edinburgh
press, has made a significant contribution in exploring schizoanalytic
applications. There is a long list in fact, of titles that state: Deleuze and
the Schizoanalysis of … Art, Ecosophy, Literature, Religion, Cinema,
Machinic Unconscious. One quickly learns that each book in this series is
a singularity in its own write/right.
In ‘Schizoanalysis: An Incomplete Project’ (2013), Buchanan pro-
vides an important and useful exposition of schizoanalysis, furthering
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 5

his more truncated overview in his earlier book, Deleuze and Guattari’s
Anti-Oedipus: A Reader’s Guide (2008). Buchanan clearly points out
that there really is no method, formula, or model to follow with any
assurances, only guidelines of exploration. Guattari, in his latter writ-
ings, struck out on his own, calling on ‘metamodeling’ as another way
of developing schizoanalysis. Again, metamodeling has no easy articu-
lation as to what it is, only Guattari’s own ‘diagrams’ as he works out
his own problems. Both Janell Watson (2008) and Brian Holmes (2009)
have developed their own interpretations of Guattari’s particular direc-
tion. According to Watson, metamodeling riffs on the French term as
both ‘model’ and ‘pattern’ in two ways: as a pattern of behavior that
one is socialized into through familiarization, socialization, institution-
alization, and sociopolitical regimes to establish prescriptive norms, and
as a model of mapping processes and configurations. The bottom line
is that Guattari invents ‘diagrams’ or refigures existing diagrams, which
then open up new vistas and ideas by drawing on the potential that is
available. These ‘singularizing maps’ are ‘meta’ in the sense that they are
creative cartographies that offer future scenarios and imaginaries. ‘What
distinguishes metamodeling from modeling is the way it uses terms to
develop possible openings onto the virtual and onto creative proces-
suality’ (Guattari 1995, 31). Guattari applied his cartography toward
reworking Lacan’s fixation on the unconscious that is ‘structured like a
language’ and the capitalist system in general.
Schizoanalysis, as Buchanan says, is an ‘incomplete project’ because it
exists in a state of ‘permanent revolution’ (164). As such, “everything
begins in the middle’—there is no step-by-step way of applying schizo-
analysis because life itself is not like that” (ibid.). The project is ‘unfin-
ishable.’ To engage in schizoanalysis, to actually mark out some sort of
‘method’ where there is none, Buchanan suggests, is precisely what is
expected to keep the project alive, as it were, to forward its potential.
Buchanan succinctly identifies Deleuze and Guattari’s two objections to
Freudian psychoanalysis. The first is that desire as lack limits its produc-
tion, and second, by the ‘talking cure’ fixated on the Oedipus complex
as a universal premise, discourse itself was limited. Lacan’s own reliance
on Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism will be replaced by their call
on the asemiotics of Louis Hjelmslev and Charles Sanders Pierce. Yet,
as Buchanan further argues, Deleuze and Guattari do not ‘solve’ the
issue of why some associations are more important than others when
it comes to assemblages we find ourselves in, where desire circulates in
6 J. JAGODZINSKI

its machinic capacity. The move they make is to think associations as

affects. Buchanan maintains that their concept of the refrain (ritornello)
as developed latter in Thousand Plateaus ‘goes to the heart of the entire
schizoanalytic project’ (179), although it is a ‘partial and incomplete’
answer to this problem of associations. A refrain, as an ‘affective’ mecha-
nism of association, ‘brings together forces, ideas, memories.’ As a musi-
cal refrain, for instance, it seems to harness power for personal, social,
and cosmic purposes, centering and decentering the self. Buchanan
equates refrain with association.
Buchanan follows up with Guattari’s (2011) definition of schizoanal-
ysis as a ‘pragmatics of the unconscious’ (27), the way it works as a ‘fac-
tory.’ Desiring-machines (or assemblages) are the working parts of this
machinic unconscious. Their operation, as a pragmatics of the uncon-
scious, is what needs to be grasped. Schizoanalysis is now understood as
the discourses of desiring-machines (assemblages). The process of desir-
ing-production becomes the production of associations, which are the
connections between thoughts, ideas, and feelings. Such desiring-pro-
duction emerges through the ‘machines’ that are formed; in Deleuze
and Guattari’s case, these are not physical things but ‘objects’ in process.
Lacan’s petit objet a is not dismissed in Anti-Oedipus (1983). A rather
obscure but extremely important footnote confirms this (p. 27). What
they reject is Lacan’s emphasis on ‘the desire of the Other,’ which he
was eventually to jettison in his Joyce seminar (S XXIII) with his con-
cept of the sinthome, a direct reaction to Thousand Plateaus and Luce
Irigaray’s critique of phallocentrism. The sinthome does away with the
over-reliance of the Other. Despite the expression of tribute in A-O,
the footprints, however, are left tracked all over Lacan’s body. Without
blatantly calling the master out—lack, ‘familiarization, phallic symbol-
ism, castration, ‘unconscious structured like a language’—A-O is replete
with divergences away from Lacan’s reinterpretation of Freud, and his
status as the ‘French Freud.’ Before the Joyce seminar in 1975–1976,
Lacan maintained that reality and fantasy are deeply intertwined, with
reality itself shaped by the empty signifier of the Phallus; the Phallus
has no signified; its empty form was filled in by ‘the’ Law, while justice
searched to appease judgment so that the system would not dissipate.
Desire as lack was a capitalist libidinal formation. Fantasy was a way to
sustain capitalist hegemony by fetishizing the commodity that always
contained ‘a bit of the Real,’ but never the ‘real’ itself. Slavoj Žižek
made this claim famous by pointing out that the demand of capitalism is
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 7

simply to ‘Enjoy!’ Deleuze and Guattari turn to an affirmative notion

of desire as a way to question the [false] needs that capitalism perpetu-
ates. Psychoanalysis is not entirely dismissed; rather, desire as lack is rec-
ognized as a particular assemblage formation. ‘[N]eeds are derived from
desire; they are counterproducts within the real that desire produces’
(A-O, 27). Desire is claimed to be affirmative but without an object, it
can only be ‘productive’ and intransitive. Productive desire becomes an
actualizing assemblage of forces. In this sense, desire is actual, while the
Oedipus complex is virtual. Capitalism dwells on desire as lack and hence
produces an object—the commodity fetish. It is a social-production as
well. Lacan’s objet a more than not becomes concretized as a transitive
object. Its expressions: paranoia and schizophrenia are socially produced
in the capitalist order. In this regard, the entwinement of the actual/vir-
tual, that is to ‘actualize the virtual,’ should not be understood simply
as creating something that was in the imagination and then ‘actualizing’
it in concrete terms (as an object or thing, artwork); rather, this means
that something sensual from the Outside has been given attention or
actualized consciously or unconsciously (such as a preoccupation with
something). The entwinement of the actual/virtual (what will be called
a ‘fold’ latter in Deleuze’s Leibnitz book) is a coexistence, mediated by
the membrane of the skin. Buchanan concludes that the virtual/actual
couplet must be understood in a ‘psychological sense’ (183) rather than
being ontological or metaphysical, suggesting (surprising for many) that
schizoanalysis is meant to be a cognitive activity.
Jean-Claude Polack worked alongside with Félix Guattari and Jean
Oury from 1964 to 1972 at the La Borde clinic in Cour-Cheverny.
The first sentence by Jean-Claude Polack’s (2018) essay, ‘What is
Schizoanalysis’ immediately puts to question the ontological status of
such an undertaking. ‘What is?’ undergoes the same sort of question-
ing as it did for Buchanan: There is no ‘is’ of schizoanalysis. Instead,
Polack develops a genealogical approach readily admitting that since its
appearance the term ‘has constantly caused surprise or provoked bizarre
definitions’ (49). Nevertheless, as he says, ‘Schizoanalysis aims from
the outset to test pragmatically … a theory of the Unconscious deeply
rooted in the determinations of the socius and politics … Capitalism and
Schizophrenia’ (ibid.).
For those of us who have little knowledge of the clinical practices of
Guattari and no access nor privilege to any sort of archives aside from
Guattari’s (2006) The Anti-Oedipus Papers, a point Buchanan also raises,
8 J. JAGODZINSKI

who mentions that even their biographer François Dosse (2010) offers
precious little to nothing about Guattari’s practice, Polack provides some
feel as to what took place. We are told that Oury had taken to heart two
forms of alienation: one mental and the other social. Mental alienation
was perhaps genetic, the dominant mode of psychiatry that sought to
formulate a universal code of mental disorders (in the American con-
text, now referred to as the DMS-5: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders). Guattari was asked to bring these two forms of
alienation into confrontation through practices that would be progressive
in their ‘de-alienation.’ Such an undertaking in a clinic is hampered by
social and administrative constraints organized by the State. The margins
of freedom are almost zero. Yet, Guattari taking charge of the organiza-
tion of daily life, the institutionalization of the clinic did manage to make
some changes. Polack’s example is Marcel, a ‘resident’ of eight years who
was allowed to buy a bike in town without having to ‘work’ for it. This
(surprisingly) opened up a change in his behavior: The mental and social
alienated dynamic was disturbed in a positive way.
Polack also provides us with a sense that Guattari, ‘an unclassifiable
leftist,’ played an important role in the revolt of 1968; he always prac-
ticed an ‘ethics of precarity and finiteness.’ Guattari had a taste for ‘risk
and experimentation,’ intervening in bureaucratic or ritualized militant
activity. Oury and Guattari shared a total militant and political complic-
ity, says Polack. What divided them was the anti-psychiatry movement
of Lang and Cooper in England. Guattari was for it, Oury against. The
turning point for Guattari came in 1969, linked not only to his meeting
Deleuze but also with his break from Lacan’s apolitical stance, introduc-
ing machinism as his materialist basis for describing the desiring psyche.
The publication of this radical stance was offered to him in Scilicet, but
it had to be anonymous as Lacan was its sole reviewer. Guattari refused,
and Polack says that this decision effectuated the rupture.
Polack has the range and ability to show us how Deleuze’s own ‘con-
versation’ with Lacan through his writings led to an impasse, even cred-
iting Slavoj Žižek (2004) for his misconstrual of Deleuze as a Lacanian
to make this impasse evident. The seduction exerted by Guattari over
Deleuze, says Polack, can be gleaned from the preface Deleuze writes
to Guattari’s text: Psychanalyse et Transversalité. Deleuze identifies in
these essays three problems and provides three answers. In an all too
brief summary, the three problems are: What form should politics take
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 9

if politics is in the unconscious itself? How to introduce psychoanalysis

into revolutionary military groups? Lastly, how can therapeutic groups
influence political groups and also influence psychiatric and psychoana-
lytic structures? Deleuze answers: The unconscious is related to a whole
social, economic, and political field and not to the universality of the
mythical structure of Oedipus; political groups are of two forms: subject
groups and subjugated groups, the former are agents of enunciation that
ward off hierarchy and totality, the latter accept hierarchy and ward off
death and dissipation, and lastly, ‘a transformation of psychoanalysis into
schizoanalysis implies an evaluation of the specificity of madness’ (62).
Part 4 of Anti-Oedipus for Polack is a materialist critique of the
Freudian and Lacanian Unconscious. It also presupposes a productive
force to engage clinical psychoses as well as to trouble the follies of his-
tory. Two regimes, the libidinal and the political economy, are fused
together into a single nature over the spread of historical evolution in
these two volumes subtitled Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Richard
Lindner’s picture inside the cover (Boy with Machine) is a prelude, warn-
ing the reader of Anti-Oedipus that ‘its words and rhythms, espouses
the climate of industrial machines. … It heats up, emits and captures.
It breaks down and starts again … A war [is] declared by schizoanalysis
on the denomination of language’ (65). Semantic and material arrange-
ments do not follow any intrinsic logic of organization or mathematical
laws of development. Drawing on Hjelmslev, they elaborate ‘a machinic
economy of components and signs that lie outside the semantic and syn-
tactic facts of language’ (ibid.).
Maurizio Lazzarato (2014) has taken up Guattari’s asemiotic position
and updated it to the contemporary capitalist order. Like Guattari, he
rejects the signifying semiotics of language. Content and expression are
dismembered or uncoupled. Lazzarato follows Guattari by differentiating
signs that owe their efficiency to their passage through representation
and consciousness—so-called impotentized signs, as opposed to ‘power
signs’ that do not owe any influences through mediated representations.
‘Asignifying semiotics’ has become a common occurrence; machines
are no longer ‘just’ things, but semiotic assemblages that consist of the
human, inhuman (mechanical or electronic devices), and incorporeal ele-
ments (code). This multiplicity of semiotic systems is subsumed under
the logic of capital.
Polack takes us through Deleuze and Guattari’s reworking of Melanie
Klein’s partial objects to show how they form heterogeneous elements
10 J. JAGODZINSKI

of desiring-machines (assemblages), and then onto some familiar terri-

tory that is further developed in Thousand Plateaus, the biological, phys-
ical, and chemical terms that form a new description of the unconscious:
molar, molecular. ‘But in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm
of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphor,
but matter itself’ (A-O, 311). In a particularly difficult passage, they
write: ‘Partial objects are the direct powers of the body without organs, and
the body without organs is the raw material of the partial objects. The body
without organs is the matter that always fills space to given degrees of
intensity, and the partial objects are these degrees, these intensive parts
that produce the real in space starting from matter as intensity = 0. The
body without organs is the immanent substance, in the most Spinozist
sense of the word’ (A-O, 326–327, original emphasis).
What does that even mean? Polack’s take away is the following:
Matter and intensity are the same substance—interchangeable; one
can add that they coexist like the quantum wave-particle phenome-
non. Unicity and multiplicity are also coexistent, rather than contra-
dictory. This is basic Spinoza: All (univocity—Nature—cosmos—God)
is one changing substance, and the modes (multiplicities) within it are
also undergoing continuous change. Finally, desiring-machines are com-
posed of two elements—partial objects and the body without organs
(BwO). Together, the stasis of organicism is resisted, to which can be
added, the danger of total dissipation is staved off. A machinic assem-
blage must ‘resist’ within these two extremes, which would end in
‘death,’ i.e., entropy.
The ‘schizo’ in schizophrenia carries with it splintering, fragmen-
tation, and decoding at all levels of logic when it comes to living. The
wager is that such a schizophrenic process is likened to capitalist deter-
ritorialization; the psyche and society are comparable in their decoding
flows. However, the reterritorializations that follow are quite at odds.
‘Psychoanalysis settles on the imaginary and structural representatives of
reterritorialization, whereas schizoanalysis follows the machinic indices of
deterritorialization’ (A-O, 316). Oedipus defiles sexuality, subordinating
desire by organizing its flows to determine gender forms, ways of loving,
setting up erotic norms: ‘the shameful universe of “perversions”’ (68).
In contrast, Deleuze and Guattari advocate n-sexes: anoedipal lines of
singularity. Moreover, they posit desire as a power of Nature, non-hu-
man, and non-anthropomorphic sex. Such desire precedes and produces
the inter- and intrarelated assemblages. ‘Sexuality is not a means in the
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 11

service of a generation; rather, it is the generation of bodies that is in

the service of sexuality as auto-production of the Unconscious’ (A-O,
116). It should be pointed out, however, that Deleuze and Guattari
are not outright dismissing Oedipal relations in Anti-Oedipus. It is not
a question that such a position is invalid. Rather, it is a question of its
evaluation within capitalism that is crucial. Oedipus is not a universal
phenomenon; rather as a ‘complex’ of the nuclear family, it does function
in a particular way within capitalist assemblages. The Oedipus complex
has a relative validity within capitalism, always a factor within capitalist
assemblages. For instance, in TP (228), they equate ‘microfascisms’ with
‘micro-Oedipuses.’ As Holland (2008) puts it: ‘Just as capital privatizes
surplus appropriation, the nuclear family privatizes reproduction. Just as
the nuclear family interposes the power of the father between the infant
and the mother as its means of life, market society interposes the power
of capital between the worker and the earth as its means of life’ (85).

Fascistic Tendencies
The most vexing question Anti-Oedipus opens up is why people vol-
untarily desire their own oppression; that needs and interests result in
many combinations, raising the difficult problem between what may
be a revolutionary project or a turn to fascist violence. Put in another
form: The indecisive zone between preconscious (needs and interest)
and the unconscious (desire), ‘between molar repression and the creative
power of the molecular,’ (69) is from where the problematic emerges.
The question of fascism looms large today with the rise of dictators, oli-
garchs, and authoritarian figures all over the world under the guise of
democratic governments and ‘free’ elections. What, if anything, has really
changed today? In the Greek context, the paradigm of a nascent democ-
racy, a tyrant (the name given to an illegitimate ruler or king, a position
that usually went to the firstborn son), himself a member of the ‘party of
the land’ (nobility), paid off the ‘party of the hill’ (the poor who lived
in caves) to riot and complain so that concessions could be made to the
‘party of the coast’ (the rising merchants and traders) so they can support
the ‘legitimacy’ of the tyrant’s rule. Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis
argues that the masses aren’t somehow tricked or duped into support-
ing fascism; they actively desire it. Unlike psychoanalysis (e.g., Wilhelm
Reich) that maintains repression makes desire irrational. Ideology then
converts this repressed desire into what is an irrational susceptibility
12 J. JAGODZINSKI

to authoritarian figures and fascist slogans of othering. In distinction,

schizoanalysis maintains that such categories as rational and irrational, or
ideology and psychology, are of secondary importance. Fascism operates
on another level. Desire is ‘always already’ socially engineered by means
of propaganda and representations that are directly registered on the
‘body without organs’ (BwO). Affect is prior to ideology. The masses
have to be massaged before they are messaged. The desire circulating on
the body is captured and directed, more or less, via social representations
(negative ads for instance) that set and form images that convey a direct,
bold, and hardline edge. The degree of paranoia and fascist tendencies is
increased by the intensity of the frame’s form. It is no accident as to why
contribution funds for television time and advertising are such an issue
when it comes to elections. Money is pumped in to ensure a candidate’s
message is well massaged. The BwO in A-O is the locus of social libidinal
investments. Schizoanalysis addresses both the psychological and sociopo-
litical terms for these effects: ‘the paranoiac, reactionary, and fascisizing
pole, and the schizoid revolutionary pole. … The two poles are defined,
the one by the enslavement of production and the desiring-machines to
the gregarious aggregates that they constitute on a large scale under a
given form of power or selective sovereignty; the other by the inverse sub-
ordination and the overthrow of power’ (A-O, 366, original emphasis).
Eugene Holland (2008) has attempted to explore this question in
relation to the twenty-first-century rise of fascism beginning with the
Bush era in the USA, which is so easily extended to the Trump presi-
dency as the Obama presidency has been slowly eroded through his con-
certed efforts to overthrow any achievements Obama’s administration
has been credited with. Minimally, ‘America First’ might be understood
in Roger Griffin’s terms (1991) as a ‘palingenetic ultranationalism,’
where the core myth is to achieve a ‘national rebirth,’ to restore USA to
its mythical glory days after Second World War when it was world leader.
Brexit is a variation in kind. Populism, as Lance Bennett et al. (2018)
have argued, is a poor term. One should call what’s going on for what it
is: ‘right-wing anti-democracy.’ What attracts desire, argues Holland, ‘is
the degree of development of productive forces or of power, not the social
representations and institutions in and by which those forces are regis-
tered and generated’ (76, original emphasis). Drawing from Nietzsche,
this is a will to power that amasses more power through a social assem-
blage; the active desire for fascism by the masses (e.g., Trump’s base)
is that their feelings of power are augmented; they ‘feel’ as if they are
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 13

exerting power through their leader. It is not the psychological ‘sub-

jective feelings’ of any one individual; it is the contagion that develops
through the social-production of desire, driven by slogans, placards, and
the leader’s voice rebuking his enemies, and so on. Deleuze and Guattari
treat this as a ‘cancerous body.’ ‘[W]hat makes fascism dangerous is its
molecular or micropolitical power, for it is a mass movement: a can-
cerous body rather than a totalitarian organism’ (TP, 215). As is often
pointed out, Leni Riefenstahl’s ability to aestheticize the myth of the
German Third Reich is not unlike what goes on at Trump’s rallies coa-
lesced around America First. The USA is used to such spectacles that are
staged throughout the year via national and state football rivalries. It is
under particular historical circumstances and under specific social insti-
tutions that enable the augmentation of power. In the US case, it is the
way the Electoral College functions, which disregards population distri-
bution according to each state, the right-wing push by the GOP, the role
of the FBI in relation to Clinton’s e-mails, Russian meddling via social
media sites on the Internet, Cambridge Analytica’s role in targeting cit-
izens with Republican propaganda, racist figures like Steve Bannon and
Steven Miller as key influences in the White House, and so on. The affec-
tive forces of these heterogeneous elements would provide a preliminary
analysis as how the fascist affects of power have emerged, channelled
by the ‘charisma’ of Trump, being a mixture of both intentional media
engineering and blind contingent ‘luck.’
Holland points out that fascism undergoes a change from Anti-
Oedipus to Thousand Plateaus in the sense that ‘desire moves too fast
rather than too slow’ (76). Its speed is related to the BwO. In A-O, the
BwO is evaluated more pragmatically or experimentally in the way it may
be over-invested, ushering in the fixation on paranoia. It cannot accom-
modate movement or change; or, perhaps the BwO repels all investments
and becomes catatonic—a symptom of emptiness—hollowed out, as
it were. In A-O, Deleuze and Guattari question further the pragmatics
of the BwO: perhaps it is open to other investments of desire. Has it
been open to free-flows to break habits of organization? In relation to
‘lines of flights’: have these been blocked? Have they spun off into a void
or joined other lines to forge new weapons for escape? In TP, Holland
(when answering John Protevi’s [2000] own assessment as to their shift
into understanding fascism in terms of nihilism and suicide) says that
there is a shift to addressing a ‘microfascism,’ ‘being the cancerous BwO
of a fascist inside us’ (TP, 163, original emphasis). Unlike totalitarianism,
14 J. JAGODZINSKI

which comes to power through the revolutionary actions of a vanguard,

or in case of a military dictatorship that mobilizes a State army, historical
fascism transforms the ‘populist’ movement into a regime. ‘When fascism
build itself a totalitarian State, it is not in the sense of a State army tak-
ing power, but of a war machine taking over the State. … [F]ascism is
constructed on an intense line of flight, which it transforms into a line
of pure destruction and abolition’ (TP, 230). Holland addresses such a
formulation in the time of George W. Bush’s second term in office when
the stock market crash of 2008 was developing, and there was a worry as
to what will happen politically.
Trump wants to pick up where George W. Bush left off. Throughout
his two presidencies, Bush laid down the groundwork for fascist forms of
government utilizing 9/11 for political advantage, as many have already
analyzed (Lyons 2007). In this scenario, Obama’s achievements need to
be erased. It would seem in Trump’s case that the State machine is well
on its way in establishing a fascist regime. Jerry Harris et al. (2017) pres-
ent a six-month report card as to whether Trump can be called a fas-
cist. At that time, their assessment is damaging enough without calling
him one. ‘[Trump’s administration] contains elements and possibilities of
fascism, but is closer to authoritarian state transnationalism than a dicta-
torship of reactionary nationalism’ (11). They conclude: ‘[I]f we do use
the term fascist to describe the current constellation of power, it must be
qualified with many differences from classic fascism, and in doing so it
risks losing its analytical power, causing distortions in tactic and strategy’
(15). It is worth the risk for calling him fascist as a lot has changed since
that initial summary. The one-year assessment of the Trump administra-
tion by seven political academics (Steinberg et al. 2018), who draw on
Deleuze and Guattarian theory of fascism, is much more worrisome. Yet
Carl Boggs (2018) maintains his reservation. In his preface, he writes,
‘I have chosen to view Trump as representing an interregnum between
existing power arrangements—that is, a militarized state-capitalism—
and potential American fascism’ (original emphasis). This is but a sus-
pension—a wait and see—as to what happens next. For Boggs, Trump is
the ‘ultimate billionaire capitalist’ whose outlooks and policies favor the
extreme corporate banking priorities, which are combined with his own
brand of ultranationalism.
The above is a fair range of current analysis by political scientists.
I am writing this after the mid-November elections in 2018 when
the Democrats were able to take back the House of Representatives.
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 15

Trump administration is slowly eroding the legitimacy of the Justice

Department by constantly questioning its competency, disregarding FBI
intelligence reports and its investigative checks (the FISA filings). The
Mueller investigation into Trump’s election campaign and its Russian
links is Trump’s main target; key figures in his administration have been
rapidly replaced to do his biding, and the Republican-held House of
Representatives is not only silenced in providing checks and balancing
on Trump, but there are openly moles to keep him informed and pro-
tect him from any investigations penetrating into his family circle. The
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes openly
attempts to stall any kind of judiciary investigations into the Russian
connections. He has effectively sabotaged the House’s investigation
on Russian electoral interference, making up accusations and harassing
the FBI; the ‘firing’ of the Attorney General (Jeff Sessions) and replac-
ing him with an interim acting sycophant (Matthew Whitaker) to do as
much of Trump’s bidding as is possible before the Democrats take over
the House of Representatives in January of 2019 is another sign of the
corrosion of the US Justice Department; Fox News as Trump’s propa-
ganda machine, along with his ‘fake news’ mantra, which targets the Free
Press, especially when CNN senior reporter Jim Acosta’s White House
press card was withdrawn (and then reinstated through a court decision)
simply on the grounds that he persistently asked too many penetrating
questions, annoying Trump, is a serious sign that the First Amendment
(free speech) is being tested. Trump’s employing the army to ‘patrol’
the Mexican-US border to keep out the asylum-seeking hordes coming
from Central America via Mexico, his constant appointment of conserv-
ative judges around the country and managing to position two conserv-
ative Supreme Court judges that are beholding to him—Neil Gorsuch
and the controversial Brett Kavanaugh appointment—add to him amass-
ing power. Kavanaugh maintains that a sitting US president cannot be
subpoenaed and put on trial is another assurance that he can continue
pushing the Law and the US Constitution. To this, we can add Trump’s
warmongering—first through the call to eliminate ISIS and then support
right-wing governments like that of Israel’s Netanyahu, and the Saudi
Regimen of Mohammed Bin Salam (MBS), who had ‘clearly’ ordered
the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This was still not enough
for Trump to condemn the act, based on the premise of an arms deal
that the two countries share, and of course, oil as a potential bargaining
tool for political advantages in the future for curbing Iranian oil. Perhaps
16 J. JAGODZINSKI

one of the most ironic developments has been his ability to be ‘forgiven’
by right-wing evangelical Christians for his outright ‘womanizing’ and
sexual misconduct, a trait that (sadly) seems to be accepted and over-
looked among white working-class women who support their working-
class white husbands. For them, Trump offered the only alternative to
their plight of low wages and poor living conditions (Wrenn and Waller
2018). Paula White, the thrice-married woman, counsels Trump regard-
ing evangelical matters. The evangelical religious right, since the Bush
years, has become progressively more supremacist, xenophobic, strongly
patriarchal, and viciously set against abortion and homosexuality.
Historically, one thinks of ‘the Führer that politically overcodes all
pre-existing economic and social relations—including war machines—
and aligns them on himself as head of the German State and the thou-
sand-year Reich’ (83). The comparison with Trump is not that different.
Consider: Trump’s own narcissism as someone who knows best, makes
all the decisions, increases military spending and arms sales, pumping
up Wall Street via tax relief for corporations, pushing for some ‘pure’
American citizen to be protected from the likes of Islam and the barbar-
ians at the gates who want in; the ‘wall’ as a symbol of his xenophobia,
spouting conspiracy theories, neglecting disaster relief and assistance to
the island of Puerto Rico; blurting out his use of the word ‘nationalism’
to fortify his ‘make America great again,’ hitting back especially hard
at African-American football players for not rising to the singing of the
National Anthem in protest for police brutality against ‘Blacks’; turning
his back on European allies and rebuking his trading partners: Canada and
Mexico. Taken as a whole, Trump exemplifies a form of macrofascism,
a rule-breaker who does what he wants, when he wants, makes money
through laundry schemes, and has sex ‘on demand.’ Judith Butler (2016)
says it well, ‘[His] vulgarity fills the screen, as it wishes to fill the world.’
Perhaps, contra to Holland, Deleuze and Guattari were right given the
state of globalism today, and Trump’s abusive position of power: The war
machine finally prevails over the State after the end of Second World War
as the global war machine subordinates all political and social consider-
ations to the aim of capital accumulation. What makes Trump happy is
when the Dow Jones figures are up and the economy is humming with
the job unemployment down to record numbers, regardless if this per-
centage is statistically ‘cooked’ to taste right for his regime (Farren 2018).
Holland (2008, 79–82) argues that Deleuze and Guattari are mis-
taken when maintaining that historical fascism is ‘suicidal’ as well as
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 17

‘contagious.’ The turn to total war by the Nazi State, he says, was for
historical contingent reasons. The jury, however, is still out on such an
assessment. Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party wouldn’t exist
if it stopped waging its war with the Palestinians; like Trump, Netanyahu
needs a constant enemy to insure peace as war. His government already
boasts that their Wall has been built. Holland points to Theweleit’s
schizoanalysis of the Freikorps in Male Fantasies (1987, 1989) to explore
the everyday microfascism as played out between male soldiers and their
images of women and female sexuality. Trump’s male fantasy of women,
his misogyny, and his form of masculinity: a stance where he never apol-
ogies, never acknowledges his mistakes and stupidity, rarely says sorry
and always competes to win that brings fits of anger and hysteria when
he loses, have yet to be adequately explored within this emerging fascist
narrative. Recall that Hitler too had fits of rage and studied voice and
radio so as to reach the masses. Is this so different than Trump’s media
(television) savvy and the invention of his own sociolect at rallies and
on talk TV (Fox and Friends): the jokes, the name calling, the faces, the
outright exaggerations and lies, the slogans, scatological allusions, not
to mention his provocations (‘nationalism’) and outright busts of spite-
ful anger. All this is consumed by his base and then ‘spit out’ over the
Internet. Hatred is unleashed as ‘their’ leader confirms their own desires
for exclusion. The danger is not to reduce these questions into a sim-
ple psychologism (‘the’ leader), but to recognize the sociocultural desire
that actualizes this potential for such expression; much like the question
as to why there are mass killings in the USA on such a regular basis? It is
not only the madness of some mentally deranged person suffering from
PTSD, nor is it the madness of Trump per se, it’s the assemblages of
desire that emerge within the US socius, enabling acts of mass murder to
take place, and leaders like Trump to emerge from the shadows.
One such strong force is Christian evangelical fundamentalism of the
right which wages its own war machine. Holland (2008, 89–90) shows
them to have been active during the Bush era, suffering defeat during
the Obama presidency, but now fully in force with Trump. Holland
points out that during the Bush era the Christian Right formed an
‘unholy alliance with US supremacists’ (‘white supremacists’ who are
defined ethnically rather than racially). This alliance has been strength-
ened and invigorated under Trump. Both groups see America’s God-
given mission to rule the world (a version of ‘America First’). For both
groups, Clinton and Kerry were anathema, the former for his cultural
18 J. JAGODZINSKI

corruption surrounding the ‘Lewinski affair’ and the latter for engineer-
ing the withdrawal from Vietnam and Iraq, and legislating gay marriage.
Given the above analysis, it does appear that Trump’s war machine is tak-
ing over the State. ‘[W]hen fascism builds itself a totalitarian State, it is
not in the sense of a State army taking power, but of a war machine tak-
ing over the State’ (TP, 230). When this happens, Deleuze and Guattari
maintain, a path toward suicide is set. If a point is reached where there
are no means to subdue the turbulence, the result is self-destruction.
One thinks here of the tenuous stability of the ‘Trump-Kim Jong-un
accord.’ It could easily fail. How long can Trump tolerate Kim’s stall tac-
tics at nuclear disarmament? Trump is developing a war economy as he
tries to amass a position of power to occupy a global bully pulpit. These
are events on the macrolevel. On the microlevel, contagion, corruption,
and cancerous contamination continue to circulate microfascist agendas
through the many assemblages of desire.
Calling on Guattari’s (1984, 1995) thoughts on fascism, Gary
Genosko (2017), one of the most, if not ‘the’ most astute commenta-
tors and explorers of Guattari’s oeuvre in the Anglo-speaking context,
has written an essay on Trump’s fascism that directly addresses the mic­
ropolitical fascism which Foucault addressed in his preface to A-O. To
recall Foucault’s (1983) assertion that A-O was a book on ethics, it was
not only the historical fascism of Hitler and Mussolini that is always a
concern, ‘but [especially] also the fascism in all of us, in our heads and
in our everyday behaviour, the fascism that causes us to love power, to
desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us’ (p. xiii) (Holland
1987). Fascism is immanent to desiring-production as it ‘seems to come
from the outside, but finds its energy right at the heart of everyone’s
desire’ (Guattari 1995, 245). Genosko tells us that Guattari develops
a threefold typology toward fascism, and the first two macropolitical
approaches do not entirely satisfy him, one a sociological approach and
the other a neo-Marxist approach that falls into a reductive dualism: The
obedient mass follows the ‘revolutionary’ leader. The last is an analyt-
ic-political approach that he makes his own where desire is multiple and
different, consisting of singular intensities that combine with one another
in (seemingly) incompatible ways rather than as identities to be totalized
by a party apparatus—that is ‘by the totalitarian machine of a represent-
ative party’ (Guattari 1995, 231). It is precisely the way desire emerges
in various assemblages that fascist potentials never really disappear but
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 19

change and modulate into other forms historically. It’s the ‘micro-black
holes’ that absorb the energy of empty promises. ‘[E]very fascism is
defined by a micro-black hole that stands on its own and communicates
with the others, before resonating in a great, generalized central black
hole. There is fascism when a war machine is installed in each hole, in
every niche. Even after the National Socialist State had been established,
microfascisms persisted that gave it unequaled ability to act upon the
“masses”’ (TP, 214). Genosko’s point is that these ‘back holes’ are all
over the Internet and through social media, absorbing, resonating, and
generating heterogeneous belief into assemblages of desire that promote
a war machine that feeds into Trump’s war machine against the State.
Genosko’s summary of this swirl of black holes microfascisms is succinct.
I quote him in full,

New microfascisms find fertile ground in the fast circulating redundan-

cies of Internet memes and other post-media artifacts like the use of
echo quotations as anti-semitic signifiers. Extremely involutive black
holes draw processes of subjectivation into themselves as their power
increases with every iteration of them. Caught up in the pleasures of
empty promises, Pepe memes, 4chan rants and actions, combover and
spray tan jokes, comedic mimesis and alt-right semiotics, and staging
policy by spectacle, with so many supercharges of nothingness to go
around, desire cannot extract itself from the echo chamber of emptiness
that modulates its existence, making it lose its bearings, finding solace in
distress, that travels surprisingly well along the bubbling resonances of
social media. (65)

As Guattari put it, ‘fascism, like desire, is scattered everywhere, in sepa-

rate bits and pieces, within the whole social realm; it crystallizes in one
place or another, depending on the relationships of force’ (Guattari
1995, 245). Nancy S. Love’s (2016) analysis of the white power music
of right-wing extremists in her Trendy Fascism provides insight into how
such ‘black holes’ are affectively formed. White power music has long
thrived in ‘hidden place of hate’ (Simi and Futrell 2010): closed bars,
private clubs, restricted festivals, and the Internet. With the election
of Trump and the support of the contemporary, alt-right things have
changed. Not only has such music expanded on the Internet, but now
even iTunes is unable to remove it all from its playlist. Hate music is on
the rise. The never-ending question is what can be done ‘pragmatically?’
20 J. JAGODZINSKI

How does one combat a cancerous body? What education? What

intervention?
In the closing pages of his chapter, Polack maintains that schizoa-
nalysis ‘is not to combat or invalidate psychoanalysis but, on the con-
trary, to extend its range to the critical understanding of our world
and to find the means of defusing its charges and destruction’ (70).
Psychoanalysts like Eilon Shomron-Atar (2018) have taken schizoanalysis
to heart and have tried to root out the ‘fascist within,’ what Umberto
Eco (1995) called an Ur-Fascism. Shomron-Atar discusses a fascism
that resonates on different levels: ‘global/state/capitalism and psyche’
(55), each forming their own assemblage of desire. Shomron-Atar gives
us insight into three patients (Shine, Glossy, and Matte) who struggle
with aspects of their lives that bring them to a point of ‘no life,’ a feeling
of being ‘dead’ to the world, shaped by forces they feel they have no
control over. Shomron-Atar brings up the notion of ‘vibrant concepts.’
‘Vibrant concepts are concepts that have no external goals, focal points,
or constraints. They traverse the private and the political—linking both
and privileging neither—but open up this space for novel possibilities
of private-political life. … Schizoanalysis is a no-person psychoanalysis
in the sense that the true object of analysis is the vibrant concept, not
the subject, and that it includes the world and the transformation of the
world as part of the intersubjective field’ (56). Shomron-Atar searches
for those moments of becoming with his patients that emerge sponta-
neously; they are never predefined. He follows Deleuze and Guattari’s
understanding that repetition brings with it difference. ‘[E]ach repetition
is an attempt to create a novel difference, one that would reverberate
through the future and then back through time and transform the entire
series of repetitions.’ … [The challenge is to] ‘to find the difference that
is and was folded into all repetitions and that, once released reverberates
throughout the series and radically enlivens all past instances’ (57, origi-
nal emphasis).
What this brings to the table of schizoanalysis is based on a form of
faith and pedagogy, a rather startling sense of responsibility, particularly
to those younger than oneself—who have more future if the conditions
of the Earth do not change because of human folly. Shomron-Atar calls
on love, and such love points to a form of imperceptibility, contrary to
the recognition of subjectivity that spirals into power relations. ‘For love
to escape the dialectics of fascism, Deleuze and Guattari … suggested
that it must take the form of reciprocal giving in which both people are
 1 INTRODUCTION: SCHIZOANALYTIC VENTURES 21

radically transformed as subjects. … [It] is a mutual pulling of each per-

son beyond themselves. Love, then, is not a recognition of the other, nor
an experience of the self, but an experimentation where both self and
other become something less individual and more singular’ (60). For
Shomron-Atar, love is an anti-fascist transformation. It is to release the
Other from the servitude to prescribed categories and concepts so that
the potential to become a vibrant multiplicity becomes possible.

* * *
The following essays are my responses to the schizoanalytic project called
on by Deleuze and Guattari. They are responses of love in the sense they
have transformed me in my search for some adequate way of furthering
schizoanalysis. The book is divided into two parts.

Part I: Filmic Ventures

With this backdrop, the essays that follow explore the call to release free-
form ‘schizophrenic desire’ from its molar capture, a call to defeating
the processes of paranoia in their capitalist forms. As is often pointed out
by many commentators on such a ‘revolutionary’ project, schizoanalytic
processes are to be distinguished from clinical schizophrenia. As they say,
‘between the schizo and the revolutionary: the difference between the
one who escapes, and the one who knows how to make what he is escap-
ing escape’ (A-O, 341). Schizophrenia is the ‘potential’ for revolution
and not the revolution itself. In this way of thinking, there is no precon-
ceived goal to which desire is submitted to, no ‘political program’ that
is proposed. Desiring-production (i.e., the molecular investment where
free-form desire subverts the molar forms of power and paranoia) and
social-production (i.e., the resultant subjectivized formation) are inti-
mately intertwined as two regimes that affect/effect one another. Each
case is a singularity.
The following six essays explore aspects of schizoanalysis as ‘ventures.’
Each case is examined in the way desire is libidinally invested as there
is no method for such an analysis; what is required is speculative close
reading. There is always a risk that they go awry. The book is structured
‘backwards,’ so to speak; by that I mean that the last essays explore fun-
damental philosophical conditions that have emerged within the tech-
nologically digitized world, and address the established paranoia, along
with pedagogical suggestions. This first part is an exploration of selected
films that address schizo potentialities to break with molar norms:
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER I
THE CHEVALIER DE FROTTÉ

At dawn, on April 7, 1790, a singular disturbance was going on in

the streets of Lille. In the northern districts, not far from the citadel,
troops of soldiers stood all along the avenues, filled the squares,
ransacked the courtyards of the houses. Shots went off every
instant, and the extraordinary thing was that this fusillade from the
soldiers was directed against other soldiers. In the midst of the
smoke, the deafening noise, and the cries of the awakened
townsfolk, were to be seen the blue uniforms, with sky-blue facings,
of the Regiment of the Crown, one of the four quartered in the
garrison.[2]
Every horseman who appeared was greeted with successive
volleys; evidently the combat was to the death between the light
cavalry of Normandy, who charged upon the pavements or fought on
foot with their muskets, and the grenadiers of the Crown and of the
Royal-Vaisseaux.
Moreover, there was no order in this street-fight. The officers on
both sides were absent, and if by any chance some had been
present, the excitement and anger visible upon the assailants’ faces
were a proof that their intervention would have been useless.
Riot, in fact, was reigning in the city of Lille, the capital of the
province; and this time law and order were being upset by those
whose duty it was to make them respected. But the town, with its
80,000 inhabitants, had for months been going, nervously and
anxiously, through a succession of anything but encouraging
episodes. The convocation of the States General, the formation of
the Garde Nationale, the creation of the Municipality, and, two
months earlier (in February), the administrative upset which thrilled
the province—all this, added to the distress of the kingdom, to the
general misery, to the exaggerated price of food, and to the ruin of
commerce, had brought about several outbreaks in this
manufacturing town, naturally dependent upon its trade for its well-
being. And, at the very moment that there came from Paris the most
alarming news—that is, on April 29, 1789 (coinciding almost day for
day with the sacking of the Reveillon factory) pillage had its first
innings at Lille also; the bakeries were invaded; and three months
later four houses were attacked by the mob and burnt down.
Of the troops which then composed the garrison of Lille, one part
had taken up their quarters in the town; these were the regiments of
the Crown and of the Royal-Vaisseaux. The other, consisting of the
light cavalry of Normandy and the infantry of Colonel-General, the
leading French regiment, were lodged at the citadel, that imposing
fortress which is Vauban’s masterpiece. Certain signs of
insubordination had crept into the two former regiments; the
revolutionary spirit was working actively in the men, and was
favoured by the permanent contact with the inhabitants in which
these two regiments lived. More remote from this influence, away off
in the citadel, the “Colonel-Generals” cherished sentiments of whole-
hearted devotion to the King; moreover, they had over them a body
of officers whose unadulterated royalism was to display itself in the
events which we shall now endeavour to set forth. As matters were,
the least thing would let loose these warring elements in the garrison
upon one another. And what finally did it? A mere nothing, a scuffle
that broke out on the evening of April 8, between the chasseurs and
the grenadiers—some say a duel. At any rate, two soldiers were
killed on the spot.... Instantly cavalry and infantry take sides for their
respective comrades. During the night a general attack is talked of,
on both sides. The officers get wind of it; but, unluckily, two of the
colonels are on leave. The Marquis de Livarot, commandant of the
province, tries to restore peace by holding a meeting of delegates
from each corps; he believes he has succeeded, but scarcely has he
left them when the fusillade breaks out again in every direction.
The “Colonel-Generals” had remained neutral until then; discipline,
so carefully maintained by the commanding officers, had prevailed
with the men. But when, in the evening, they saw the chasseurs of
Normandy falling back on the citadel for refuge, these their
comrades of the infantry opened the gates to them, brought them in
and joined cause with them, refusing any longer to listen to their
officers, who still strove for peace. They carried things, indeed, even
further than that. M. de Livarot and M. de Montrosier—that last
lieutenant of the King—on coming out of the gate which led into the
square, saw that they were surrounded by a group of mutineers,
whose attitude was menacing. Despite the efforts of the few officers
who were present, these two were dragged into a casemate, where
their situation was simply that of prisoners.
During this time the most sinister rumours were circulating in the
town, kept alive by the infantry of the Crown and the Royal-
Vaisseaux regiments. People expected nothing less than to see the
cannons of the citadel open their throats and vomit down grape-shot
on the populace. Shortly, on the walls of the houses and in the cafés,
the uneasy citizens might read a strange proclamation, at the
authorship of which all the world could guess. It opened with this
apostrophe:—
“Let us beware, Citizens,
let us beware,
and thrice: Let us beware. We are deceived, we are
betrayed, we are sold!... But we are not yet ruined; we have
our weapons! The infernal Fitz-James[3] is gone with all his
crew ... they have contented themselves with keeping back a
useless lot.
“Livaro, the infamous Livaro, is said to be in our citadel;
Montrosier, the atrocious author of all our ills, sleeps
peacefully.
“The soldiers, whom they have tried to corrupt, offer these
men to us.... What are we waiting for? Why do we not show
all France that we are Citizens, that we are Patriots? Is it for
the orders of our Commandant that we look? But has not the
aristocrat of Orgères already shown us how unworthy he is of
the place which we have blindly entrusted to him?... He
 commands us only that he may lead us into the abyss.
Seconded by his sycophant, Carette, and by the traitors
whom our cowardice leaves in command over us; leagued
with the heads of all the aristocratic intrigues, he now seeks to
alienate from us our brave comrades of the Crown, and of
Royal-des-Vaisseaux. Shall we let them go? No; ... but we will
march with them.... We will go and seize Livarot, Montrosier,
and deliver them up, bound hand and foot, to the utmost
severity of the august National Assembly!
“Why are not our conscript Fathers convoked? Is the
General Council of the Commune a mere phantom? Is the
blood of our citizens less precious than vile pecuniary
interests? Would not our secret enemies flinch before the
enlightenment and the patriotism of our Notables? Ah!
Citizens! Let us beware, and once more let us beware!”
At an extraordinary meeting at the Maison de Ville, the
Municipality had convoked the General Council; and, in the interval
they received a deputation from the troops of the citadel, assuring
the inhabitants of Lille of their good intentions: “The regiments of the
Colonel-General, and of the Chasseurs de Normandie” (said the
envoys) “protest to the townsfolk that it has never entered into their
heads to cause the least alarm to the citizens, of whom until now
they have known nothing that was not admirable;” and they also
announced that two delegates had been sent to Paris, on a mission
to the National Assembly and to the King.
The whole night went by, and no solution had been found.
Towards four o’clock the two regiments which had stayed in town
were about to leave it on the persuasion of the town councillors; but
the City Guard would not let them go, and thus, on the morning of
April 10, the same difficulties had to be faced anew. But this situation
could not continue. Messengers are despatched to Paris, and with
them are sent denunciators of the “infamous” Livarot, whose conduct
is considered suspicious; and for eight days he is kept under
surveillance at the citadel, in defiance of the Royal authority with
which he is invested.
 Meanwhile, the officer delegated by the “Colonel-Generals” was
making his way to Paris. Despite the importance of the mission, it
was a young lieutenant who had been chosen for it; but the coolness
he had shown all through the episode, and his determined and
energetic attitude, had designated him at once as the man to be
selected. Louis de Frotté was born at Alençon on August 5, 1766. [4]
Of noble lineage (his family had been established in Normandy since
the fifteenth century), he had inherited the sentiments of duty and
fidelity to his King and of devotion to that King’s cause. Left
motherless at the age of six,[5] educated first at Caen, then at
Versailles, in the school of Gorsas,[6] he had entered as
supernumerary sub-lieutenant, in 1781, the regiment of “Colonel-
General,” then garrisoned at Lille. The young officer attracted every
one by his generous, liberal, and affectionate character, and by his
strong sense of comradeship. It was in the regiment that he
contracted those solid friendships which were afterwards so
beneficial to him, such, for instance, as that of the Prince de la
Tremoïlle, and of a Norman gentleman named Vallière.
A short stay at Besançon had broken up the long months in
garrison at Lille; then he had returned to that town, where the
disturbances of which we are speaking had come to diversify the
somewhat monotonous way of existence which is inseparable from
garrison life.
Filled with hope for the result of his mission, Frotté rode swiftly to
Paris. The prospect of seeing the King, of narrating to him, as well as
to the War Minister, Le Tour du Pin, the recent occurrences at Lille,
of assuring him of the fidelity of the regiment, of obtaining some
tolerably satisfactory solution of the critical situation—all this was
spurring on our cavalier. And the thought of soon getting back to
Lille, his mission crowned with success, of reappearing before
certain eyes to which he was not insensible—everything combined to
make him forget the length of the journey.
His stay at Paris was a short one. The future chief of the chouans
of Normandy realized one of his greatest wishes in being admitted to
an audience with the King; but the position of the Royal Family in the
midst of the prevailing effervescence of feeling, and the atmosphere
of hostility which surrounded them, filled his heart with foreboding
thoughts. Burning with devotion, powerless to make valid offers to
the King, Frotté—who had suggested the bringing together at Lille of
a nucleus of reliable troops, absolutely to be trusted—regained the
garrison at the end of a few days, for it had been made clear to him
that Louis XVI. did not wish to share in his youthful ardour and its
projects. He had, however, succeeded thoroughly in the official part
of his task. When confronted with a deputation from the hostile
regiments of the Crown and of the Royal-Vaisseaux, who came in
their turn to plead their cause, the representative of the Colonel-
Generals had been able to cope with them in defence of his own
interests; he came back, bringing with him an order for the alteration
of the whole garrison. The Colonel-Generals were transferred to
Dunkirk, the three others were sent out of the province. As to the
unfortunate Marquis de Livarot, who was still a prisoner at the
citadel, a mandate from the Minister summoned him to Paris, there
to answer for his conduct. Needless to say, he cleared himself of
every accusation, and was entirely rehabilitated.
Frotté did not spend in idleness the few days which preceded the
departure of his regiment. Besides the ordinary arrangements—the
giving up of his place of abode, the packing of his affairs, the paying
of his debts; besides the friends to whom he had to bid farewell; in
short, besides the thousand ties that are contracted during a stay of
nine years in a town which is not among the smallest in the kingdom,
there was, in the Rue Princesse, at a few minutes’ walk from the
citadel, a one-storeyed house of unimposing exterior, whose door
had often opened to receive the young officer. The prospect of not
returning there for a long time filled his heart with distress and regret.
For some months this house had been inhabited by a foreigner, an
English lady, who had come to Lille with a reputation for grace and
beauty which had proved to be not unmerited. At that time there was
already in Lille quite a colony of English people, who were attracted
there either by the proximity of their own country and the closeness
of Paris, or by the commercial prosperity of the place and its
numerous industries. In the census returns of the town at the
beginning of the Revolution, and also in the taxation assessments,
we have come across many names of evident British origin. But the
remarkable thing about the new-comers at the Rue Princesse, was
that they had not arrived from England, but from Versailles. They
were very soon received by the best society of Lille, and questions
began to circulate about them, every one trying to penetrate a
certain mystery which hung about their past life.
Let us, in our turn, attempt to lift the veil, and to find out something
about the English lady who is to be the heroine of this work.
Charlotte Walpole, who was born probably about 1758,[7] bore a
name that in the United Kingdom is illustrious among the illustrious.
Was she a direct descendant of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Oxford,
the celebrated statesman who administered English politics for some
years under George I.? It is difficult to ascertain.
The youngest of three daughters,[8] Charlotte probably passed all
her youth in the county of Norfolk, the cradle of her family, under that
gloomy sky, in that ever-moist climate, in the midst of those emerald
green pastures which make that part of England one of the great
agricultural districts. The tranquil, melancholy charm of the scenery
there, the immense flocks of sheep and goats browsing in the
pastures, the wide horizon, unlimited except by the heavy clouds
which hang eternally over the land—all this fastened upon the
imagination of the girl, naturally of a very enthusiastic temperament,
and developed in her that indefinable charm which struck all who
knew her. Her large eyes, enhanced by very marked eyebrows, had
an infinitely sweet expression. The only existing portrait of her
depicts her with her hair dressed in the fashion of the time—her dark
curls lightly tied with a slender ribbon, and falling back, carelessly, on
her forehead. She had a most original mind, a face which changed
and lit up with every passing mood, and an expression all her own,
which made her, as it were, a unique personality. All this is enough
explanation of why, at nineteen, Charlotte Walpole went to London,
with the idea of making use of her talents on the stage.
The capital of England could then boast of only three theatres, of
which the most frequented, Drury Lane, which ranked as Theatre
Royal, is still in existence, and preserves intact its ancient reputation.
It was there that, on October 2, 1777, at the opening of the theatrical
season, Miss Walpole made her first appearance in a piece called
Love in a Village,[9] a comedy probably in the same genre as those
of O’Keefe, and then very much to the public taste, which was
growing weary of the brutal and licentious farces of the preceding
centuries. Five days later Miss Walpole reappeared in The Quaker,
and the week after she was seen in the role of “Jessica” in The
Merchant of Venice, one of Shakespeare’s masterpieces. After
having played, in the spring of 1778, in The Waterman, her success
seemed assured; on May 2, Love in a Village was given again for
her benefit, and she then filled to perfection the part of “Rosetta”; the
season terminated ten days later with a representation of The
Beggars’ Opera, by John Gay. There can be no doubt that the young
actress had found her vocation, and that, moreover, with the consent
of her family. But, as a matter of fact, there did not then prevail in
England the sort of disfavour that so often attaches to a theatrical
career in a certain set of society. Miss Walpole’s experience is a
proof of this. During the summer, which she most probably spent in
the country, she sought to cultivate her talents, and so well did she
succeed that in the season, which reopened on September 15, 1778,
she was seen again in London, eager to gather fresh laurels. This
time she appeared in costume, in a sort of operetta entitled The
Camp, which had a tremendous success all that winter. The piece,
an imitation of Sheridan by Tickell, represented the arsenal and the
camp at Coxheath, and Miss Walpole, as “Nancy,” took the part of a
young soldier, and filled it most admirably, a contemporary author
informs us.[10] We have found an engraving which represents her in
this costume, doubtless a souvenir of the plaudits which she then
received. In the month of April, 1779, she appears again in other
pieces by Farquhar. After this, the bills for us have nothing to say;
Miss Walpole’s name is not to be found in them.
W H Bunbury Delinᵗ. Watson & Dickinson Excudᵗ.
Charlotte Walpole, in “The Camp.”
(After an engraving in the British Museum.)
[To face page 12.
 To what must one attribute this sudden silence, this disappearance
from the stage, just when so fair a future seemed opening before the
actress? To a determination brought about by her very success itself
and by the charm she exercised. Several times during the winter a
young man had been seen at Drury Lane, who occupied a front stall
and watched very keenly the acting of the graceful young recruit of
Coxheath; so that there was no very great astonishment expressed
when, on June 18, 1779, The Gentleman’s Magazine, in its society
column, announced the marriage of Sir Edward Atkyns with Miss
Charlotte Walpole, of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.[11] “The pretty
Miss Atkyns”—that was henceforth to be her appellation in London,
and all over Norfolk!
If the Walpoles could boast of an illustrious descent, the Atkyns’ in
this respect were in no wise inferior to them. In this family, where the
Christian names are handed down from generation to generation,
that of Edward is, as it were, immutable! Illustrious personages are
by no means wanting. An Atkyns had been Chancellor of the
Exchequer in the seventeenth century; his son had built a splendid
manor-house, Ketteringham, in the same county of Norfolk; at his
death he left it to his grand-nephew, who, in his turn, bequeathed it
to the fortunate husband of Miss Walpole.
The young couple took up their abode in this antique mansion of
Ketteringham Hall, the name of which will often recur in this
narrative. They appear to have lived peacefully there for some years,
coming only for a few weeks in mid-winter to London. “Happy is the
nation that has no history,” says the proverb; and it is equally true
that happy folk have none. So we will certainly not, in the absence of
any material, create one for these young people.
Nevertheless, it is well to mention the account given of them by a
friend of our heroine, the Countess MacNamara, who seems to have
been very well acquainted with the different particulars of her life.
She tells us that the young couple, who, if we are to believe her, had
not many friends in England, decided to go to the Continent, and live
at Versailles.[12] (The explanation does not seem a very plausible
one.) There the charm of the young wife, her pretty voice, the
receptions which she soon began to give, and to which, thanks to
her husband’s wealth, she was able to lend so much brilliancy,
opened to her quickly the doors of all the society connected with the
Court. In the Queen’s set, the beautiful Duchess de Polignac, in
particular, took a great fancy to this graceful foreigner; and was
desirous, in her turn, to make her known to her august friend. Thus it
came about that Lady Atkyns was introduced into the circle of Marie-
Antoinette’s intimates. Even more completely than the others, the
new-comer fell under the Queen’s spell. A current of ardent
sympathy established itself between the two women. They were
united by a deep and intimate mutual comprehension and sympathy.
For any one who knew Lady Atkyns, it was certain that these first
impressions would not fade, but that they would prove to be, on the
contrary, the first-fruits of an unalterable friendship. These are the
only materials one has for the details of that sojourn at Versailles.
When exactly did the Atkynses resolve upon this move? Their only
child, a son, must have been born before it took place. What were
their plans in coming to the Court? All these are insoluble problems.
They were probably at Versailles when the first revolutionary
troubles broke out. They were present, perhaps, at the opening of
the States General, that great national function; and they were
among those who shuddered at the taking of the Bastille. When the
October days brought back the Royal family in a mournful
procession to Paris, the young couple were already gone—already
too far away to enter into the anxieties and sufferings of those whom
they loved.
A brief mention, a few words found after patient research, in dusty
registers, tell us enough to make us certain of their fate. This is one
of the joys of the explorer in this sort—to find buried under the waste
of years of accumulated official papers, a feeble light, a tiny, isolated
indication, which opens, none the less, an infinite horizon before him.
In the autumn of the year 1789, an Englishwoman, named by the
officials charged with the collection of a special poll-tax, Milady
Charlotte, arrived at Lille with one servant.[13]
 In December, she installed herself in the parish of St. André, in a
house in the Rue Princesse, then numbered 337, which belonged to
a gentleman named De Drurez. Of her husband there is no mention,
nor is her surname given. Probably she had stayed some time at an
inn, before settling down in Rue Princesse; but what is to be
concluded from so vague an appellation as “Milady Charlotte”? Why
did she conceal half her name? Nevertheless, at Lille there is some
information to be had about her. We know that she was pensioned
upon the Royal Treasury, since she is described as a French
pensioner.
In the following year she increases her establishment, keeping one
more servant; her poll-tax, which had been 14 louis, now rises to 16.
We may add here that, in order to satisfy our curiosity, we have
examined—but in vain—the lists of the pensioners from the Royal
Treasury at that period; there is no mention anywhere either of
Milady Charlotte or of Lady Atkyns—not even in those which relate
to the Queen’s household.[14]
By what right did she enjoy this pension? By the same, probably,
as so many of those favoured folk whose names fill the famous red-
books—the books whose publication was to let loose the fury of the
half of France upon the Court and the nobility, because they showed
so plainly what treasures had been swallowed up in that abyss.
As we have said, the documents say nothing of the presence of
Edward Atkyns at Lille—nothing, that is, with one exception, which,
delicate as it is, cannot be passed over in silence. Had disunion
already crept into the household? Had the pretty girl from Drury Lane
found out too late that he to whom she had given her heart and her
life was no longer entirely worthy of her gifts? Perhaps. At any rate,
on March 20, 1791, the curate of the parish of St. Catherine at Lille
baptized a male child, son “of Geneviève Leglen, native of Lille,”
whose father declared himself to be Edward Atkyns.[15] Henceforth
this last individual disappears completely from the scene in which we
are interested; we shall merely learn that in 1794 Charlotte Atkyns
was left a widow.
 This somewhat lengthy digression was necessary in order to
portray the lady whom Frotté was to designate as “That heroic and
perfect being,” and who was to take such a hold upon his life. How
did they become acquainted? Probably very quickly, in one of the
numerous drawing-rooms where Lille society congregated, at balls,
at the theatre, in the concert-hall. The white tunic, with red facings, of
the “Colonel-Generals” was eagerly welcomed everywhere. As one
of his friends wrote to Frotté: “All the decent people in the town will
be delighted to see the uniform, if you wear it there!” And one can
imagine the long talks that the young officer had with his fair friend in
that winter of ’89—talks that circled always around one precious
topic. Already full of Royalist feeling, Frotté grew enthusiastic for the
Queen’s cause, as he listened to the stories about Versailles, to the
reminiscences of her kindness, her charm, her affectionate ways—of
the thousand characteristics, so faithfully recounted by the friend
who had come under her influence.[16]
One can divine all the advice, all the prudent counsels which were
impressed upon our young lieutenant on his departure for Paris.
Everything combined to make him eager to offer his services to the
King and his belongings. We have seen that his efforts were
unsuccessful; but the journey had not been entirely fruitless, since it
had enabled him to bring back to his friend some news of the woman
she so loved.
At the end of April the good folk of Lille were to bid farewell to the
regiments which had caused them so much anxiety. While the
Colonel-Generals were leaving the town by the Dunkirk Gate, the
townspeople were watching the long columns of the Normandy
chasseurs, the grenadiers of the Crown, and the Royal-Vaisseaux
disappearing in different directions. What had been a partial failure in
Lille was to break out again three months later, in another part of the
kingdom, for the affray there was but the prelude to the revolt of the
troops of Chateauvieux, at Nancy, and to many other risings. The
army, in fact, was every day becoming more and more infected by
the spirit of revolution, which crept in somehow, despite all discipline
and all respect for the commanding officers. And the army was no
untilled field; it was well prepared for the seed of the Revolution,
which lost no time in taking root there.
This explains the discouragement which nearly all the officers felt.
They were gentlemen of unflinching Royalist sympathies, but they
perceived the fruitlessness of their efforts to re-establish discipline
and to preserve their authority. Frotté was especially a prey to this
feeling. We shall see that during his time at Dunkirk he found it
impossible to conquer the hopeless lassitude that was growing on
him. And yet Dunkirk is not far from Lille, and he knows that he has
left behind him there a friend who will console and guide him. But his
restless, questioning turn of mind makes it difficult for him to
reconcile himself to accomplished facts. He can feel no sympathy for
this Revolution, which now strides over France as with seven-
leagued boots; he has, indeed, an instinctive repulsion for it. Frotté is
an indefatigable scribbler, and in the long idle hours of his soldier-life
he confides to paper all his fears and discouragements, while
keeping up, at the same time, a regular correspondence, especially
with his friends Vallière and Lamberville. It is a curious fact, already
commented on by his biographer, M. de la Sicotière, that this intrepid
and active officer, this flower of partisans, who spent three-fourths of
his time in warfare, was yet the most prolific of writers and editors.
At Dunkirk he encountered among the officers of the regiment
Viennois, which shared with his own the garrison of the place, a very
favourable disposition towards his plans. His Royalist zeal, fostered
by his friendships, was to find an outlet. Already the National
Assembly, eager to secure the army on its side, had issued a decree
obliging the officers to take the oath not only to the King, but to the
nation, and to whatever Constitution might be given to France.
Nothing would induce our young gentleman to take such an oath as
that. He never hesitated for a moment, and he succeeded in
influencing several of his brother officers to think as he did. It was
thus that he announced his decision to his father:—
“You already know, my dear father, that an oath is now
exacted from us officers which disgusts every honourable and
decent feeling that I have. I could not take it. I know you too
 well, father, not to be certain that you would have advised me
to do just what I have done. And of course I did not depend
only on my own poor judgment; I consulted most of my
brother officers, and amongst those whom I esteem and love,
I have not found one who thinks differently from myself. Our
dear chief, too, M. de Théon, has been just the good fellow
we always thought him.”[17]
His friend Vallière, on hearing of his conduct and his intentions,
wrote to him in enthusiastic admiration.
“I am truly delighted to hear” (he wrote some days before
his arrival at Dunkirk) “that the regiment Viennois is almost of
the same way of thinking as our own, so that we are sure to
get on well with them. Then there are still some decent
Frenchmen, and some subjects who are faithful to their one
and lawful master! Alas! there are not many of them, and one
can only groan when one thinks how many old and hitherto
courageous legions ... have stained irretrievably their ancient
glory by this betrayal of their sovereign. Well, my dear fellow,
we must hope that you will have some peace now to make up
for all that you have been going through. Unfortunately, the
immediate future does not seem likely to make us forget the
past, or to promise us much happiness. If the scoundrels who
are persecuting us, and ruining all the best things in Europe,
take it into their heads to disband the Army (as one hears that
they may), be sure to come here for refuge. Everything is still
quiet here.... If their fury still pursues us, we will leave a
country that has become hateful to us, and go to some foreign
shore, where there will perhaps be found some kind folk to
pity us and give us a home in their midst.”[18]
The first hint at emigration! Frotté was already thinking of it; often
he had envisaged the idea, but, before giving up all hope, he wanted
to make one last effort.
The proximity of Lille enabled him to keep up unbroken relations,
during the summer and winter of 1790, with the officers of the
garrison he had just left. A plot had even been roughly sketched out
with Lady Atkyns’ assistance; but a thousand obstacles retarded
from day to day any attempt at carrying it out, and once more our
poor young soldier was totally discouraged. Despairing of success,
disgusted with everything, he began to meditate escape from an
existence which yielded him nothing but vexations, and, little by little,
he ceased to brood seriously over the thought of suicide. He spoke
of it openly and at length to his friend Lamberville, in a strange
composition which he called My profession of faith, and which has
been almost miraculously preserved for us.[19] This confession is
dated February 20, 1791. We should have given it in its entirety if it
were not so long.[20] After a quasi-philosophical preamble—Frotté
was addicted to that kind of thing—he described to his friend the
miserable state of mind that he was in, with all his troubles and his
griefs. In his opinion, a man who had fallen to such depths of ill-
fortune could do but one thing, and that was, to give back to God the
life which he had received from Him.
“My ideas about suicide are not” (he added) “the outcome
of reading nor of example; they are the result of much
reflection. I have long since familiarized myself with the idea
of death; it no longer seems to me a sad thing, but rather a
certain refuge from the troubles of life.... When I consider my
own situation, and that of my country; when I think of what I
have been, what I am, and what I may become, I can find no
reason for valuing my own life. Moreover, I live in an age of
crime, and it is my native land that is most subjected to its
sway.”
And Frotté went on to describe his past life to his friend, telling him
of the way he had behaved hitherto, of the principles that had guided
him, the hopes he had cherished in the brighter opening days of life;
then the disappointments and the discomfitures that had
overwhelmed him. The events he had lived through filled his mind
with bitterness.
“I was born to be a good son and a good friend, a tender
lover, a good soldier, a loyal subject—in a word, a decent
fellow. But it breaks my heart to see how my compatriots have
 altered from kindly human beings to crazy ruffians, and have
so accustomed themselves to slaughter, incendiarism,
murder, and robbery, that they can never again be what they
used to be. They have trampled every virtue under foot; they
torture the hearts that still love them.... And my own
profession, soldiering, is dishonoured; there is no glory about
it now; my country is in a state of anarchy which appals me.”
Very evident in these pages, written in a delicate cramped
handwriting, is the continual bent towards self-analysis, towards
minute details of feeling, towards a lofty and remote attitude, so
markedly characteristic of Frotté’s prose.
Many pages of the thick, ribbed paper, fastened together with a
sky-blue ribbon, are filled with the same kind of reflections; then he
suddenly breaks off altogether. Had he carried out his intention? Was
that why he ceased to write? Not at all; for two months later, on April
10, there is a further confession, and the young soldier-philosopher
begins by admitting that he has changed his mind; he defends
himself on that point, and says that reflection has made him resolve
to give up such gloomy views for himself. First of all, the fear of
causing irreparable grief to his father had made him pause (and yet
their relations do not seem to have been so affectionate as of yore);
[21] and then the desire to settle certain debts, considerable enough,
that he would leave behind him.
“In fact,” (he says) “since fresh troubles are overwhelming
me, I have decided not to choose this moment for suicide. I
want to be quite calm, on the day that I set out on the Great
Journey.... The month of August saw my birth; it shall see my
death.... But I don’t want to play for effect. I try my best to
seem just the same and to let no one guess what I am
thinking of.... Then there’s another reason for my going on
with life. Since I was born a nobleman of France, I want to do
my duty as one.... My sword may still be of some use to my
King and to my friends; and since I must die, I want my death
to benefit my family and my country.... I shall fasten up this
confession, until the moment comes for me to die. If I have
the good luck to fight, and die in the cause of honour, this, my
 dear Lamberville, will console you a little, for it will prove to
you that death was a comfort to me. If disorder and
dissolution are still reigning in France when August comes, if
there has been no attempt to restore order—then I shall lose
all hope, and all the reasons that I give you here will acquire
full force. I shall not be able to hesitate. I shall then take up
my pen again to add my last wishes, and my last farewell to
my tenderest and dearest friend.”
In spite of the melancholy tone of these pages, their author had
finally taken the advice which came to him from all directions, from
people who loved him and were in his confidence, and who deeply
grieved to hear of such a state of mind. There was none more loyal
than that young Vallière of whom we have already spoken. At that
time he was on leave in the Caux district. Frotté and he were very
intimate, and Vallière knew every step that was made towards the
carrying out of the plot which had been arranged simultaneously at
Lille and at Dunkirk.
“I am very sorry,” he wrote to his friend on November 13,
1790, “that the things you had to tell me could only be
entrusted to me verbally. However, in the absence of further
knowledge, there was nothing for me to do but simply come
here,[22] where in any case I had business, and where I am
now waiting quietly for the carrying out of the promises you
made me, being, as you know, fully prepared. But, my dear
fellow, I see with amazement that nothing as yet is happening
to verify your forecast. Can you possibly have been
prematurely sanguine, or has the plan miscarried? Perhaps it
is merely a question of delay—Well! That is all right, and I
hope that’s what it is.”[23]
Two months later, Vallière, who had doubtless gone to Paris to
make inquiries, gave the following account of his journey:—
“I came back on the 3rd instant; and I shall have no
difficulty in telling you of all my doings in Paris, for I did
nothing in the least out-of-the-way. I lived there like a good
quiet citizen, who confines himself to groaning (since he can
 do nothing better) over all the afflicting things he sees. I went
from time to time to see our ‘August Ones,’ and they always
put me in a furious temper.”
Our “August Ones,” as Vallière mockingly called them, were the
members of the Constituent Assembly, and they were busied with
the elaboration of that gigantic piece of work, the Constitution, which
was to substitute the new order for the old traditions of France. Little
by little the edifice was growing, built upon the ruins of the past. The
sight of it filled with vexation and fury those who, like Frotté, deplored
the fallen Royalty, the lost privileges, the dispossessed nobility, of the
old order. For the rest, our chevalier, during his stay at Dunkirk, had
frequent news about his fair friend at Lille. One day it would be a
brother officer who would write, “I played cards yesterday with your
fair lady, who looked as pretty as an angel, if angels ever are so
pretty as were told they are. She is going to have her portrait painted
in oils by my favourite artist. I dare say she’ll manage somehow to
get a copy done in miniature for her Chevalier!”[24]
Or another time he would be told to come to a concert at which a
place had been taken for him.... In a word, the time went on; and,
kicking against the pricks, our young soldier awaited the moment
when he might bring his plans to realization.
From month to month the spirit of insubordination which had crept
into the regiment with the events at Lille was gaining ground, and
showing itself more and more overtly. The Garde Nationale recently
formed at Dunkirk showed signs of it. At the head of this was an
enterprising officer, of the “new order,” named Emmery, who sought
persistently to win the troops of the garrison over to his own way of
thinking. But he found his match in the colonel of the regiment, the
Chevalier de Théon, a staunch Royalist, who had no intention of
pandering with the enemy. In a small place like Dunkirk, shut up
between its ramparts—the barracks were in the middle of the town—
it was physically impossible to prevent the soldiers from coming in
contact with the townsfolk. M. de Théon and his officers (the majority
of whom were on his side) had seen that very clearly; and suddenly,
in the month of June, they resolved to try a bold stroke. Dunkirk was
only five leagues from the Austrian frontier, which was some hours’
distance from Brussels, where already the forces of resistance of the
anti-revolutionary party were concentrating. They resolved on
winning Belgium to their cause, on gaining over the troops, and on
offering their services to the Prince’s Army, which was forming
beyond the frontier.
Before executing this scheme, Louis de Frotté is secretly sent to
Brussels. He there sees the Marquis de la Queville, formerly a
member of the Constitutional Assembly, and deputy of Riom, who
has become agent for the Princes; but little attention is paid to
Frotté’s proposals, and no promises of any kind are made. Frotté
returns somewhat discouraged to Dunkirk.
Suddenly, like a clap of thunder, resounds the news which is to
throw the kingdom into confusion for three days. During the night of
June 20-21 the Royal Family have escaped from the Tuileries,
despite Lafayette’s guards, and the berlin which holds them is driving
rapidly towards the frontier. Directly the exploit is known messengers
set off in all directions, despatched by the National Assembly; they
take chiefly the northerly roads, where everything points to the
probable finding of the fugitives. The authorities at Dunkirk, in their
turn, receive despatches from Paris, and take extra precautions.
This was quite enough to let loose the thunderstorm that was
gathering in the garrison.
On June 23, at 11 a.m., the grenadiers of the Colonel-General,
who had been skilfully worked upon by some of the agitators, signed
the following protestation, and refused to follow their officers. They
actually succeeded in raising the whole garrison.
“When the Commonwealth is in danger” (so one may read
in their manifest), “when the enemies of our blessed
revolution raise an audacious resistance, when a cherished
King abandons his people and flies to his enemies’ side—the
duty of all true Frenchmen is to unite, to join forces! There
should be but one cry—Liberty! Resolute to conquer, we
should confront our enemies with a body of men who are
ready to dare all at the lightest sign, and to wash off with the
blood of traitors the insult done to a free people!”[25]