Derek Hook, Birkbeck Originality and existing work As the author makes clear, there have been multiple critiques of the notion of trauma (or PTSD) since the 1980's, and hence a key challenge of the book is to avoid supplying a 'laundry-list' of existing critiques without adding something new. As it stands, the proposed book definitely does add something new, i.e. ... Read morea more philosophical-political analysis and critique of notions of trauma via the work of Alain Badiou and that of related thinkers. The author will be aware of the work of Ian Parker and the long critical psychology tradition of work that complains of the split between social and subjective, of de-contextualization and de-politicization in the domain of the psychical. These are of course important critical themes, although they have often been revisited, and not always with satisfying or adequately original responses. I would encourage the author at each point in the development of the manuscript to keep this tradition in mind, and to keep asking themselves how they might make a distinctive and different contribution to these issues via an innovative Lacan and Badiou influenced critique. Title and readership A quick observation regards the title: a first glance makes one think that the book is focussed fundamentally on the concept of 'the real' (much like Tom Eyers's recent Palgrave title on the Lacanian real, a title worth referring to in the text itself). If PSTD is the real substantive focus throughout, it would help if this was signalled in the book's main title not just its subtitle. This in turn has a knock-on effect on marketing: if the book is intended for chiefly Lacanian scholars, then the given title works just fine, but if it aims to appeal also to clinicians and a psychology audience interested in PTSD, then perhaps trauma should be centralized more clearly in the title. The author makes it clear in the 'key selling points' section that PTSD is the book's key signifier when it comes to marketing and audience. This I think is right, but it does pose a potential disjuncture between form and readership, i.e. between an academic/philosophical approach and a readership that would appreciate supportive didactic devices, readability, accessibility to utilize the notions discussed in their clinical work. It might perhaps be worthwhile giving some thought to how the book could offer such didactic devices (key examples, suggestions for clinical practice, basic, applicable and practicable notions, etc.) and readability for such an audience. If I recall correctly Stijn Vanheule's recent Palgrave Pivot title, a critique of the DSM, does this extremely well - manages to make sure that philosophical/psychoanalytic concepts are conveyed in a user-friendly and applicable manner. The author has done well to signal areas of readership, noting the breadth of trauma studies, in addition to a readership of Lacanian theory and practicing psychologists. One slight reservation here: in the way the book's material has been presented here, there is perhaps not quite enough of the holocaust, postcolonial, cultural studies references that such areas of readership would recognize. It might be a good idea, when the manuscript is underway, to include a wide set of references and citations so as to entice such readerships, and to keep them reading, i.e. to appeal not only to Lacanian-oriented clinicians. Conceptual underpinnings Bold assertions & compression of the material In the early description of the book's second section, the author claims that Lacan offers a 'socio-political' understanding of subjectivity and that the notion of the real undermines simplistic divisions of the social and the subjective. These two bold claims need a lot more substantiation I feel, and the role of the symbolic, the signifier seems the necessary missing middle ground. Lacan is not first and foremost a 'socio-political' theorist, but a psychoanalyst interested in the overpowering role of the symbolic. Likewise, the concept of the real, while incredibly important, is perhaps not the most obvious way of trying to problematize the social/subject dichotomy; surely the notion of the Other would also be crucial to mention here...? I realize that it is difficult to include all the necessary detail in a summarisation of a book with such complex arguments, but I think it is necessary to try and investigate underlying concepts - and key underlying premises, and indeed bold conceptual assertions - in a way which anticipates also possible limitations and refutations of the arguments in question. A related issue comes to the fore here. The Palgrave Pivot proposal form asks why the current project is suitable for the PIVOT line of titles. The author has not answered this adequately, but has instead noted the number of words of the proposed manuscript. Some thought should go into the answering of this question because of the possible problem (a possible problem in this case) that a topic deserving of monograph-length treatment (as could be said to be the case here) is being condensed into 40 000 words, at the risk of unnecessarily condensing the key arguments in question. If I were to be totally honest I would suggest that the material discussed here would probably require - and be deserving of - a full manuscript treatment of 80 to 100 000 words. Breakdown of content I very much appreciate the critical agenda and political concepts that the author is working with. That being said, I did feel that the description of the first chapter could greatly benefit from some sort of grounded historical example. I realize that there may be some reticence here, because a given example may not be of clear interest to all of the book's readership, but something like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission experience in South Africa, and the attempt to address the history of apartheid, might usefully demonstrate how trauma is never merely psychical, but is societal, and indeed historical and political. I would not advice using such an example in a heavy-handed way that came to overshadow the whole chapter, but perhaps just as a device that enabled readers to see the pertinence of the arguments in a grounded empirical context. Chapter 2 sounds very exciting; it will be an important and provocative contribution to the field, linking Badiou to a 'critical psychology' agenda. That being said, the summary of Chapter 3 sounds like what will be offered here is a literature review of key texts. Important as this is, it would be good to see the originality of the author's particular form of critique really brought colourfully to life. Chapter 4 is again a very exciting prospect, although there is a risk that it a lot of conceptually dense material will be dealt with in a short space of time. The author will no doubt know of Mark de Kesel's book on Lacanian ethics and his critique of the idea of an 'ethics of the real'. Also important here is Calum Neill's Palgrave title on Lacanian ethics. One slight reservation I had in reading this section is that Stavrakakis's work is accorded a central place here. Stavrakakis's work is well-deserving of accolades, so that is not my issue. My issue is that Stavrakakis is essentially concerned with the political, and as such the author might be making the mistake of looking only to the Lacanian literature that will confirm their own emerging argument. Surely it would be more interesting and challenging to cite Lacanian authors who work more squarely in the clinical (subjective) field, to see how they use the notion of the real in relation to trauma. Going to Stavrakakis to fine proof of the social/political dimension of the real amounts to something of a foregone conclusion: it is a case of finding there what one wants to find. Perhaps reference to the work of Bruce Fink or Darian Leader or other practicing Lacanian analysts would prove helpful here. I think the author here also needs to take into account the fact of the individual psychical density of trauma, and be wary of getting so caught up in an argument about the political/societal dimension of trauma that this clinical dimension 'falls off the radar'. Or, differently put: what are the possible limitations of the Lacanian and Badiou approach to the issues at hand? There are times in the description of the manuscript where one feels that the critique offered is somewhat one-sided, i.e. that the Lacanian and Badiou theorizations offer all the answers while remaining themselves beyond the level of critique. Chapter 5 poses some problems for me, not in view of the issue of ethics - a complicated set of notions, but useful in terms of the current project - but in view of the 'objective level' of socio-political reality that is proposed by the end of the chapter. This begs much by way of explanation, and seems to be a profoundly unpsychoanalytic concept, a view radically at odds with what certain of the author's own theoretical presumptions. So, I would like to see more by way of explanation offered here. It would also be good I think to offer a final concluding chapter, which really ties up the key concepts and arguments that the book has dealt with This seems particularly important, not only as a pedagogical device, but given the complex terrain the book has surveyed (psychoanalytic ethics, Badiou, the notion of the real, etc.). Concluding recommendation In closing, despite my various suggestions and points of critique, I think the book would be a marvellous addition to the Palgrave pivot line. It is critical, represents an original line of theorization, and can make a very important addition to the field. Moreover, the proposed project is more than well supported by the author's own previously published work and by a line of argumentation that has been developed both in tandem with other colleagues and over a significant period of time. I wholeheartedly recommend what promises to be an important manuscript for publication by Palgrave. Calum Neill, Edinburgh Napier University General 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project The proposal is for a short monograph which would focus on a critical exploration of the construct of and treatment of trauma, adopting a Badiouian/Lacanian perspective to question closed, individual locus of trauma and opening up the social dimension. In employing Lacan and Badiou, the proposal suggests a rethinking of trauma in concert with a Lacanian/Badiouian thinking of ethics, with a particular emphasis on the real. 2) Of the different product categories outlined above, which do you feel this proposal best fits and why? On the proposed size alone, this would appear to be designed to be a Pivot text, although, in terms of the material, there would, I think, in developing the complex ideas implied, be scope for this to be considered as a standard length monograph. Proposal 3) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? In terms of its focus on trauma, the proposal does seem original. 4) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? The proposal suggests considerable engagement with contemporary work on trauma. Beyond Badiou and Stavrakakis, it is less explicit in terms of how it will engage with existing psychoanalytic scholarship. Reading between the line, I would expect some engagement with the recent work of Vanheule on the DSM, Eyers on the Real and Neill on ethics. 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? You may wish to consider structure, organisation, coherence and presentation of material; scope, coverage and breadth of appeal or degree of specialisation; whether there are any obvious omissions; timeliness and likely shelf-life of the research; what proportion of the work, if any, will require substantial re-working? Are any suggested improvements fundamental to the project's success or discretionary matters which might be addressed after the project has been accepted? On the whole, this reads a clear and logically structured proposal. My one concern is that very little of substance is said yet about the core concept of the real. The author will need to work to make it clear how the real informs on the concept of trauma. Too often the literature in this field skirts around this difficult concept and as a result ends up saying little of any real substance. This is why I suggest above that it might be worth considering a longer manuscript, in order to allow space to really explain the titular concept. 6) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? I think so. 7) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. I don't believe it is, but a Palgrave series on Lacan would be a very good idea. Market and Competition 8) Who would you anticipate the main readership of this book to be (in terms of field and level)? Most likely post-graduate students interested in a critical perspective and psychoanalytically oriented academics. 9) Would this title be suitable for the student market as a core text? If so, would you adopt/recommend this book for any courses you teach? I wouldn't adopt this a core text but could certainly recommend it. 10) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? The focus might suggest the book will be of particular interest to critical psychologists but the material touches on issues pertinent to international policy studies and politics. It ought to appeal to an international market. 11) Would this title be suitable/essential reading for a practitioner or policymakers market? If so, please let us know if there are any organisations, institutions or professional networks that would be interested in the work. It ought to be of interest to therapeutic practitioners and perhaps also people working in areas of humanitarian aid. 12) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? The quality of the writing is good. The content has a specific enough focus to allow it to stand apart. Recommendation 13) Would you recommend: a) we publish this book as it stands but perhaps with the suggestion of developing the material on the real. Show Less