> Not sure why this is seen as Lacanian, it could be
> written by anyone who
> wants to emphasize the narcissistic aspect of
> someone's political
> involvement, or perhaps to characterize that person
> as a narcissist who
> cannot engage others except as objects.
Doesn't much of the psychoanalytic tradition take this as a fundamental activity of the *subject* (the subject asks "what can I do with this person")?
> It's quite likely
> the author is doing to his hapless subject what he
> depicts his subject doing
> to the hapless commuters.
Adam Phillips makes much the same point about the narcissism of the analyst, in his essay "Narcissism: For and Against."
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com