The idea that one might end up becoming the very image of what one opposes is a psychoanalytically compelling one, and it may be useful in explaining, for instance, why many forms of insurgent nationalisms have had a "recovery of wounded manhood" component, unfortunately reproducing, with some difference, the gender norms of the regime that insurgent nationalists sought to overthrow. (The reproduction of this gender ideology is facilitated by making an analogy between family and nation--a very common rhetorical move.)
However, the psychoanalytic formulae of mirroring + doubling seem to be used by Butler and others to discourage people from even conceiving any hope of major structural transformation. Hence their "post-liberatory micro-politics" of evading the "ruse of power." In my view, a dehistoricizing tendency of psychoanalysis helps Butler, et al. to elevate a locally applicable insight to the status of Truth without making clear arguments about why it has to be always the case. (In this regard, Butler, et al. are not opponents of the politics of Truth, pace Sokal and his likes. They merely play the same game without appearing to do so.)
Yoshie