The “Polymourphously Perverse” Lobster of our Attention: a rhizomatic conversation yet not rhizomatic enough

ABSTRACT

Psychotherapy can only benefit through a meeting with the Deleuzian and post-Deleuzian thinking. I approached the insightful articles of this issue ‘plugging in’ the concept of attention while facilitating at the same time the growth of a rhizomatic space between the notions and the ideas discussed by the authors and the ‘plugged in’ concept. In order to facilitate the growth of this rhizomatic space, I adopt more the style of a conversation instead of a discussion, introducing through elliptical references links between the notions of immanence, body without organs, becoming, event, multiplicities, intensities, interembodied synchronies, expressivity, vulnerability, trust and trauma.

ABSTRAKT

Psychotherapie kann nur durch eine Begegnung mit dem Deleuzianischen und post-Deleuzianischen Denken profitieren. Ich näherte mich den aufschlussreichen Artikeln dieser Ausgabe, indem ich das Konzept der Aufmerksamkeit „einsteckte“, während ich gleichzeitig das Wachstum eines rhizomatischen Raums zwischen den von den Autoren diskutierten Begriffen und Ideen und dem „eingesteckten“ Konzept ermöglichte. Um das Wachstum dieses rhizomatischen Raums zu erleichtern, nehme ich eher den Stil eines Gesprächs als eines Gesprächs an, indem ich durch elliptische Bezüge Verbindungen zwischen den Begriffen Immanenz, Körper ohne Organe, Werden, Ereignis, Vielheit, Intensität, verkörperte Synchronien, Expressivität, Verletzlichkeit, Vertrauen und Traumata.

RESUMEN

El beneficio de la psicoterapia solo puede obtenerse a través de una unión con el pensamiento deleuziano y post-deleuziano. Me interesé acerca de los artículos perspicaces de este tema ‘conectando’ el concepto de atención al tiempo que facilitaba el crecimiento de un espacio rizomático entre las nociones y las ideas discutidas por los autores y el concepto ‘conectado’. Con el fin de facilitar el crecimiento de este espacio rizomático, adopto más el estilo de una conversación en lugar de una discusión, introduciendo a través de referencias elípticas vínculos entre las nociones de inmanencia, cuerpo sin órganos, devenir, evento, multiplicidades, intensidades, sincronías encarnadas, expresividad, vulnerabilidad, confianza y trauma.

RIASSUNTO

La psicoterapia può trarre beneficio solo attraverso un incontro con il pensiero deleuziano e post-deleuziano. Mi sono avvicinato agli articoli profondi di questo numero ‘collegando’ il concetto di attenzione facilitando allo stesso tempo la crescita di uno spazio rizomatico tra le nozioni e le idee discusse dagli autori e il concetto ‘collegato’. Per facilitare la crescita di questo spazio rizomatico, adotto più lo stile di una conversazione che di una discussione, introducendo attraverso riferimenti ellittici collegamenti tra le nozioni di immanenza, corpo senza organi, divenire, evento, molteplicità, intensità, sincronie incarnate, espressività, vulnerabilità, fiducia e trauma.

ABSTRAIT

La psychothérapie ne peut que tirer profit d’une rencontre avec la pensée deleuzienneet post-deleuzienne. J’ai abordé les articles pertinents de ce numéro spécial en me « branchant » sur le concept d’attention tout en favorisant l’expansion d’un espace rhizomatique entre les notions et les idées développées par les auteurs et le concept de « branchement ». Pour favoriser cet espace rhizomatique, j’adopte un style qui tend plutôt à la conversation qu’à la discussion. J’introduis grâce à des références elliptiques des liens entre les notions d’imminance, de Corps-sans-organes, de devenir, d’évènement, de multiplicités, d’intensités, de synchronies interincarnées, d’expressivité, de vulnérabilité, de confiance et de trauma.

ΠΕΡΊΛΗΨΗ

Η ψυχοθεραπεία μπορεί μόνο να ωφεληθεί από τη συνάντηση με τις Ντελεζιανές και τις μετα-Ντελεζιανές θεωρήσεις. Προσέγγισα τα ενδιαφέροντα άρθρα αυτού του τεύχους «ενθέτοντας» την έννοια της προσοχής, διευκολύνοντας ταυτόχρονα την ανάπτυξη ενός «ριζωματικού» χώρου μεταξύ των εννοιών και των ιδεών που συζήτησαν οι συγγραφείς, καθώς και της «ένθετης» έννοιας. Προκειμένου να διευκολύνω την ανάπτυξη αυτού του «ριζωματικού» χώρου, υιοθετώ περισσότερο το στυλ μιας συνομιλίας αντί μιας συζήτησης, εισάγοντας μέσω ελλειπτικών αναφορών συνδέσεις μεταξύ των εννοιών της εμμένειας, του σώματος χωρίς όργανα, του γίγνεσθαι, του συμβάντος, των πολλαπλοτήτων, των εντατών, της δι-ενσώματης συγχρονικότητας, της εκφραστικότητας, της ευαλωτότητας, της εμπιστοσύνης και του τραύματος.

KEYWORDS:

• Deleuze
• immanence
• body without organs
• psychotherapy
• attention
• trust

SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER:

• Deleuze
• Immanenz
• Körper ohne Organe
• Psychotherapie
• Aufmerksamkeit
• Vertrauen

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Deleuze
• inmanencia
• cuerpo sin órganos
• psicoterapia
• atención
• confianza

PAROLE CHIAVE:

• Deleuze
• immanenza
• corpo senza organi
• psicoterapia
• attenzione
• fiducia

MOTS-CLÉS:

• Deleuze
• immanence
• Corps-sans-organes
• psychothérapie
• attention
• confiance

ΛΈΞΕΙΣ-ΚΛΕΙΔΙΆ:

• Ντελέζ
• εμμένεια
• σώμα χωρίς όργανα
• ψυχοθεραπεία
• προσοχή
• εμπιστοσύνη

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Salvatore et al. (2008) compared the textual material from a psychotherapy case divided into four blocks to the textual material coming from an Italian novel divided into an equal number of blocks, and measured the level of lexical inertia (that is, the variability in combination of signs across segments of the text). Their findings show that while in all four blocks of the novel inertia has an almost equal level, in the psychotherapeutic text inertia drops dramatically after the first block, and remains constant in the third and the fourth blocks. These findings actually suggest that hypersemia is reduced over the course of the treatment through the emergence of a ‘frame of sense’ that constrains the combinations of signs. A shared frame of sense-making emerges during the process.

2 ‘[D]iscussion is just a waste of time. Conversation is something else entirely. We need conversation. But the lightest conversation is a great schizophrenic experiment happening between two individuals with common resources and a taste for ellipses and short-hand expressions’. Deleuze, G. (2007), Two regimes of madness.

3 Deleuze in his work with Guattari does not achieve to place his thinking outside the confines of structuralism altogether (for an elaborate critique see Schatzki, (2002)). Their common work becomes the reactive prey of a restrictive structuralist Lacanian image of psychoanalysis which they fervently fight. A close reading of Jerry Allyne Flieger’s (1999) Overdetermined Oedipus, which suggests a reading of Anti-Oedpipus through its own methodology, it may reveal some of the unanticipated repercussions of this failed attempt to avoid, in their fight to escape, the illusions of structuralism altogether.

4 The interested reader may find a discussion of these two processes, a process of self-distinction and a process of self-production as the spinning wheels through which our agency is unstoppably actively recreated in: Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press.)

5 Ataria (2015) from an enactivist perspectivist discusses how trauma may disrupt the ‘know-how’ of our acting in interactional sequences, while Buchholz and Reich (2014) show that trauma disrupts the ‘stock of interactional knowledge’ (p. 8) we need in order to experience an interactional scene from both sides.

6 ‘Strata’ as a notion in Deleuze and Guattari carries with it a lot of the unfortunate consequenses of their unintended collusion with structuralism. From my point of view, strata acquire their power by the predictive hierarchies through which the organism flexibly and flowingly anchors itself in the physical or social world. Canguillem’s attunement to norms, the variability through which we address nomalisation, enveloping it through our own normativity is usually ignored by structuralists and some Foucauldian critical projects.

7 Thanks to my obsession to continually scan the literature for any new publications discussing attention, Merlau-Ponty and Deleuze, I met some years ago the work of Candice Boyd (2016). Boyd left the career of a lecturer in psychology to read for a PhD in Geography. Her much interesting work on the Non-representational Geographies of Therapeutic Art Making led me to explore Garrett’s (2013) work on place-hacking closed, secret and forgotten urban spaces. The desire to explore is in all of us says Garrett, echoing our most adventurous childhood moments, and some people will not suppress it at the behest of social expectation.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emmanouil Manakas

Emmanouil Manakas PhD is a psychoanalytic psychotherapist in private practice. He teaches Counselling, Groups and Disability Counselling at several graduate and post-graduate programmes at Greek Universities.