Neoliberal individuation (as put forth by Margret thatcher’s individualizing rhetoric) seems to achieve a similar ideology of political abstinence. I find these critical political implications to condition a subject of pure indifference, the pacified anti-politic. As Grattan states in Populism’s Power, quoting Brown on neoliberal governance’s, and the psychological implications of individuation, it “makes individuals responsible for themselves” whilst “integrating subjects-along with their creative energies-into a common project whose purposes and constraints are given” (2016 pg. 106). But can this indifference, which presupposes the rejection of one as a political subject, be thought of (in a psychoanalytic sense) as a symptom of …show more content…
Up until now (roughly around Freud’s development of psychoanalysis,) speaking has been solely interdicted, that is “spoken between, between the lines. This is what he (Freud) called the repressed” (Lacan 1975). Psychoanalytic discourse devisees a translucent language, fortified with meaningful truth - the problem is this language is particular to the subject being analyzed. Nevertheless, as we saw in the documentary The Century of the Self, psychoanalysis may be deployed towards the collective will of the nation. Regrettably, this instrumentalizing, of the unconscious insight of mimetic desire (which Bernays curated for recompenses) to the P.R. sectors of major consumer industries - resulted in the psychoanalytical rhetorical marketing of civic individuation and unconscious desire on a mass scale – controversially, with profound (but dishearten) results, that are still prevalent and utilized today in the totality of the industry. With the notion that cultural society is psychoanalysis in reverse, as is fascism, we can work to better understand how our unconscious desires are articulated and represented through market research, as means of pacifying and rendering atomized individuals apolitical and left to their