The management of the masses implies, structurally, a rejection of difference in terms of individual singularity. It re-absorbs difference into a separation from the norm defined by the average, in terms of behavior. Difference, in the psychoanalytic sense, which is to say, the difference grasped outside of any comparative perspective, pure difference, is not relevant to this way of seeing things. Even more than that, it is hated because it brings along with it the law of failure: it is rooted, in fact, in the fundamental failure of the speaking subject, the failure of the rapport. It is not possible to speak of difference—small or large ones—without that specificity of the parlêtre that is the non-rapport, sexual and general, being introduced into it and then laid out. The discourse of the master, like that of the unconscious, wants a rapport between parlêtres: even better, these days, it wants an equitable, egalitarian, and communitarian rapport. This rapport not only implies class, which is to say, the case, but it also generates meaning, the right one if possible. Psychoanalysis lets us know that the structure of such a rapport inevitably leads us back to the logic of the semblable, the double, to the imaginary, in other words. This is why it would be in the same vein to oppose the love of difference to the hatred of difference, in an angelicism repudiated by both the analytic clinic and historical discipline, and whose segregationist ferocity they have always demonstrated.

[...]

Subscribe to Lacanian Ink click here.