What does oedipalization mean to you? I still haven't gotten a footing there.
edit: I suspect this line of inquiry is rife with irony.
They use it as social repression that subsists automatically in the unconscious. The book is called a guide to the 'anti fascist life' so you could call oedipolization internalized fascism (a phrase
I think they even use themselves). Have you suppressed your desire and love your daddy?
I best understand how they use Oedipus as a 'signifier.' They talk about the the unconscious as 'productive' and Oedipus as 'expressive.' The Oedipus complex takes the indifferent, meaningless machinations of the unconscious and makes them expressive of the oedipal arrangement: mummy-daddy-me. So Oedipalization introduces a transcendent object (the signifier, the phallus) into the world that codes it accordingly. Asking 'what does it means?' equates to: what 'true' authority is this expressing? and the question 'what does it do?' is better suited in unlocking the processes of the unconscious.
I believe they also refer to Oedipus as the history of desire. So oedipolization also refers to the set of material conditions that have developed to usher in Oedipus- this expressive, unproductive mode of being. (Which is the chapter I'm currently on, so bear with me) They call primitive society territorialized, which, from my estimations, means the social bodies directly corresponded to the unified territorial body of the earth. No Oedipus yet. Just as primitive man works directly on the body of the Earth and thus understands its many parts in terms of use (what can I eat, build with and etc.), social formations follow the same way: social positions in primitive society are dependent on their
use. Did you see suspended reasons David Gaeber post on debt? Because that is exactly what they are referring to. We've found that primitive society functioned on a system of debt, i.e. the family was coextensive with the social body in that every member of the family is woven in this web of social debt (literally demonstrated by the primitive practice of exchanging women/wives). So incest is a taboo not because of Oedipus, but because what constitutes the mother, father, son, daughter is dependent on what those positions mean in this web of social debt. I.e. what does the father/mother/son/daughter
do in the primitive social system. Incest would make these positions unproductive as it would close them out of the social sphere
Oedipus develops through a historical process of deterritorialization, starting with the separation of the social and familial bodies, which begin as coextensive in primitive territorial relations. The first step in detterritorialization is the despot who establishes himself as a kind of signifier, suddenly the debts and alliances of primitive society have 'meaning' in relation to the despot, or the State. Social formation is no longer entirley dependent on use, but is now coded by the signifier that is the state, the despot This is where I am in the book, so I cant speak much further, but you can see how the development of capitalsim later on only deterritorializes further through the seperation of labour and the means of production.
So to take us back to the classic Oedipal question, the Oedipus complex isn't the incest taboo, its when the incest taboo exclusively subsists in the unconscious. Once incest would have destroyed the entire structure of primitive society as it would take people out of the social system of debt, but incest now is a kind of arbitrary taboo. Really, if we all decided to enter incestuous relationships tomorrow, our mode of production would remain unaffected as the famlial unit and social body are entirely separate and enclosed units. So Oedipus is what detaches, encloses, makes arbitrary and unproductive.