{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02601156069364162, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4766355140186915, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lacanian Political Theory: A Reply to Robinson

In this response to Andrew Robinson's review of ‘The politics of lack,’ I argue that, although Robinson puts forward a number of interesting and succinct points about Lacanian political theory, his review rests on misunderstandings of post-structuralist political theory and misreadings of the texts under consideration. More specifically, I argue that his use of the labels ‘Lacanian’ and ‘theorist of lack’ is problematic; that his position rests on a misunderstanding of the relationship between ontology and politics in post-structuralist theory; and that it is a mistake to allege that Lacanian political theory is inherently conservative.