Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Retaliatory discourse: the politics of attack and withdrawal

Retaliatory discourse: the politics of attack and withdrawal Long‐term and recent sociopolitical trends in the USA pull for narcissistic ways of fashioning the self and relating to others. Discourses that sustain a split between capacities for autonomy and capacities for attachment, and discourses that sustain a split between individuals and their social surround elicit omnipotent and/or submissive modes of narcissistic relating. An increasingly vulnerable and socially abandoned population, conditioned to be ashamed of its vulnerabilities and dependency, finds itself subject to discourses that pull for various splits between “us” and “them.” This situation is a breeding ground for a politics of attack, or a politics of hostile withdrawal, or both. Neoconservatism fosters a politics of attack, and liberalism fosters a politics of withdrawal. Drawing on the psychoanalytic concept of “thirdness,” the paper concludes that only discourses and institutions that foster interdependence, containment of vulnerability, and the bringing together of relational and autonomous capacities can counter retaliatory politics. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies Wiley

Retaliatory discourse: the politics of attack and withdrawal

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/retaliatory-discourse-the-politics-of-attack-and-withdrawal-sFZSKNVPJI

References (17)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN
1742-3341
eISSN
1556-9187
DOI
10.1002/aps.96
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Long‐term and recent sociopolitical trends in the USA pull for narcissistic ways of fashioning the self and relating to others. Discourses that sustain a split between capacities for autonomy and capacities for attachment, and discourses that sustain a split between individuals and their social surround elicit omnipotent and/or submissive modes of narcissistic relating. An increasingly vulnerable and socially abandoned population, conditioned to be ashamed of its vulnerabilities and dependency, finds itself subject to discourses that pull for various splits between “us” and “them.” This situation is a breeding ground for a politics of attack, or a politics of hostile withdrawal, or both. Neoconservatism fosters a politics of attack, and liberalism fosters a politics of withdrawal. Drawing on the psychoanalytic concept of “thirdness,” the paper concludes that only discourses and institutions that foster interdependence, containment of vulnerability, and the bringing together of relational and autonomous capacities can counter retaliatory politics. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal

International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic StudiesWiley

Published: Jun 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.