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.     

Methods, Theories and Evidence: A Reply to Arzheimer

Kai Arzheimer's careful and thorough comment upon my earlier BJPIR article raises a number of important issues. While engaging in a thorough critique of the original article's methods, he also points to the (perhaps) inherent problems any quantitative approach may encounter in this area. The consequences of this are that if we wish to assess whether there are social determinants to participation, quantitative methods are limited. In the light of this, after addressing some mis-characterisations in his comment, this reply seeks to provide qualitative evidence that there may well be a link between welfare state institutions and outputs and participation.