You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Ian Parker's Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Revolutions in Subjectivity is a provocative and compelling book. Written for non-Lacanians, the book would nevertheless also be of interest to readers familiar with Lacan or those interested in the ways psychoanalysis and political and cultural theory interconnect. Parker's prose is direct, and the reader is addressed as a companion equal to the task of accompanying him on a historical journey through politics, economics, and philosophy. Chapter by chapter, Parker moves the reader through the birth and development of psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology and psychotherapy, from the early 19th century until the present day. His ability to examine his subject matter and render it readable and cohesive is truly an impressive and admirable feat. The book provides a thorough explanation of complex Lacanian ideas and practice.
Parker's intention is to show how Lacanian psychoanalysis is the one practice that, in conjunction with Marxist principles, can position the subject to participate in an “emancipatory movement under the rule of capital” (p. 13). For Parker, Lacanian psychoanalysis is the form of practice best suited for such purposes, owing to its ethical focus on the patient's desire. Other forms of therapy, which merely help patients adapt to the conditions of capitalism by teaching them how to live healthier or happier lives, thus ultimately serve to anesthetize people to their current alienation and suffering and reconcile them to the sale of their time and labor for surplus value.
Parker begins the book by tracking what he defines as the “psy complex,” the powerful meshwork of therapies and practices concerned with the governance of the individual” (p. 15), a meshwork that includes psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, and psychotherapy. The book is divided into chapters that weave the history of the “psy complex” into the political economic history, which Parker defines as the movement from late feudalism to neoliberal c