枪支暴力一定是drive defusion的样子;随着每一枪的射击，每一个生命都被子弹摧毁，我们被召唤来解决精神崩溃和彻底失代偿的严重黑暗。我们见证了一次更牢固的交织缝的解开。我们生活在危险的边缘。不要背对着门坐着。等你从包里掏出枪的时候，你就知道已经太晚了。我们是怎么走到这一步的?你和我是如何被一场把我们都囚禁起来的暴力所俘虏的?我们的文化依赖于恐惧的爆发，然后是疯狂的状态，然后是令人震惊的麻木。考虑到过度刺激驱使我们寻求平静——我们现在的生活方式——我选择了死亡驱动作为我在NBiP工作的秋季主题。
凡妮莎·辛克莱而且
马尼亚Steinkoler的书
精神分析与暴力:当代精神分析观点(劳特利奇2018)为我提供了一剂解药，抵御防御性装死的诱惑。说我们承受差异性的能力需要一些支持，这也许是轻描淡写的。这次采访我们很幸运，因为没有人能像受拉康影响的分析师那样处理他者。辛克莱和斯坦科勒认为，我们已经超越了行为不端——人们在日常生活中感到的不安(现在感觉像是一种奢侈)——并详细描述了一种不同的焦虑、危险的经历——他们称之为“angwashed”:简而言之，我们沉浸在其中。这本书是关于一种新的孤独体验的后果，关于自恋的灌输和扩散，以及它可怕的后果。我想到了枪，想到了触发警告。扣动扳机的人绝对是孤身一人。需要安全空间的人最终会被分开。没有人属于这里。归属感要求我们与他人在一起。 Yet when you kill someone they are with you forever. When you kill someone you have also at long last really made contact with a being outside yourself. As Modern analysts say: “follow the contact.” Lacan reminds us that the human subject is catapulted into being by an encounter with language, the other, and the social link. Each of these entities threatens human narcissism. As such, every encounter with difference (represented by language, the other, the world) can arouse the specter of violence. Here are some encounters with difference and its vicissitudes to be found in this book: Judith Butler makes a cameo in a bit of a dry essay that seems to advocate for the use of the superego to rein in violence. Todd McGowan argues that terrorists act so as to restore sexuality and the sublime. Guy Dana addresses the violence that accompanies demands for transparency: we can never know ourselves and so never be clear. Jean-Jacques Moscovitz reminds us that all cultures are founded by a sacrifice which made me wonder if all the violence is an attempt to manifest something gone missing? Geneviève Morel examines the memoir of a peripheral member of the Weather Underground asking what feelings about oneself make one want to come to destroy? Patricia Gherovici explores the relationship between a period of violent upheaval in Argentina accompanied by the proliferation of Lacanian thought and practice. Todd Dean reports on the violence of mechanized mental health practices used to “treat” the marginalized. And my favorite essay (there are more essays herein than I have summarized), was by Steinkoler, one of the editors, who used her analytic “skills” to craft a journalistic piece exploring the life of Adam Lanza, arguing that mass executioners kill in an attempt to break into a symbolic order from which they feel excluded, to exist, if only for a moment, as subjects on the human stage. Alireza Taheri’s essay argues that we live in a moment where some of us are “subjugated before we even become subjects,” a thought both terrifying and resonant. And so in closing I wonder: do the violent acts of the “lone wolves” contain a plea for a limit? Is the violence a response to too little, or to too much? And what to say about our clinical work and theory and the shifting of the tides therein? With the relational turn, which was also a necessary development, and its critique of analytic authority, and appeals to democracy, I wonder if psychoanalysis has become a part of the problem that besets us? Please feel free to address all comments regarding the interview to me at tracedoris@gmail.com