Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution — The Aging Matriarch "Kis," the Red Riding Hood Who Refuses, and the Grey Wolf Fantasm

“Necrophilia of the MotherInstitution” — the aging Ukrainian matriarch, Babulya Kis, wants Red Riding Hood to give her pies, obedience, and the some man attraction of the Grey Wolf. But since Red Riding Hood is red, she says “No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran, and f**k yorself, please” Get unlimited access to the best of Medium for less than $1/week. Become a member Open in app 82 min read · Just now Le "Pilier Noir" Philosophique Listen Share More Author • Mariia Panasiuk (ORCID: 0000–0002–5353– 3922) • PhD Candidate in Political Science. MA in Cultural Studies, Independent Researcher. • For Donation: https://www.privat24.ua/send/389tc “Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution” — the aging Ukrainian matriarch, Babulya Kis, wants Red Riding Hood to give her pies, obedience, and the some man attraction of the Grey Wolf. But since Red Riding Hood is red, she says “No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran, and f**k yorself, please”. part 4 . I write a long psychoanalytic paragraph, drawing on poststructuralist and leftist criticism, with references in the text and a brief list at the end in the style of APA7. I leave your rage in the field as a symptom and a text, but I read it theoretically: as a necrophilic attachment to the mother-institution, as a way in which the “mother/nation” cannibalizes its daughter’s bodies and resources, turning the promised small object (the scholarship) into a fetish, a phallus-substitute, for which Komsomol denunciations and “comradely trials” are staged. part 4 . From a psychoanalytic point of view, it is the form of “reminder” and “polite request for confirmation” that reproduces the function of the superego: it incorporates the norm and presents it as the only option, forcing the subject to internalize the accusation and shame (Lacan, 1977). Lacan’s Big Other is not abstract here; it is materialized in PDF attachments, in CC, in the schedule of the Zoom tribunal; it is a panoptic algorithm that observes and punishes, and makes it politically justified (Foucault, 1975). Žižek would tell you that ideology works not through direct lies, but through what he calls the “sublime object of ideology,” where a small object (your promised €800 grant) acts as an unreduced sign of absence, around which simulacra of care and moral superiority are built (Žižek, 1989/2006). Kristeva would help us to grasp the emotional texture: you are “abjectivized” — put in the position of a repulsive “other” who must be corrected or expelled from the comrade-body; abjection justifies the taking away, because the one who takes away is “pure” and “normal” (Kristeva, 1982). Federici and the Marxist interpretation of primitive accumulation highlight the material side: the grant economy captures military and civilian vulnerabilities and turns them into a flow of resources that are accumulated by managers and “medals,” with the logic of the award (Brown Democracy Medal and similar) serving as a cover for redistribution (Federici, 2004; see also the notes on the medal). part 4 The second paragraph unfolds a psychoanalysis of your personal rejected scene — and it concerns both the “grandmother” and the question of sexual rejection, the boundaries of desire, and taboos. You wrote about a “stupid grandmother” who blames you, “gaslights” you, and even hopes to pass you off as a simp — and in parallel, you conclude that “you can’t fake an orgasm from attending courses” and ask what psychoanalysts would say about your not wanting to “fuck with grandma.” I will not reproduce the threats or wishes for death, but I will read this as a symptom of political and family repression: the desire to avoid the sexualization/incest fantasy of the grandmother as a radical, correct manifestation of a boundary that is interpreted in a psychoanalytic clinic as a refusal to incorporate an object imposed by a powerful figure. Freud and his followers showed that the taboo on close bodily relations is not only a moral cult, but also a function of structuring the unconscious. Refusing to “union” with the mother figure (in the broad sense of the mother institution) is a rejection of her claim to ownership of your body and labor (Freud, 1905). Lacan, on the other hand, suggests that “there is no desire for the other,” meaning that it is impossible to be what you are made to be (Lacan, 1977): you are not obligated to simulate satisfaction with the course, just as you are not obligated to satisfy the maternal/patriarchal complex. Refusal is a political and mental boundary, an act of self-preservation, rather than a “simulation” in its essence. Klinika of bureaucratic trauma (derived from clinical manuals on traumatology) speaks of institutional gaslighting practices as a form of secondary trauma: when a subject who has experienced war, hardship, and disconnection is confronted with accusations and deprivation, it doubles the trauma and is processed as chronic anxiety, somatization, and an increased need for boundaries (see the literature on bureaucratic trauma and the clinical consequences of administrative violence). Mbembe and the theory of necropolitics provide a political density: when the state/institution distributes life and death through the lens of “who deserves help,” grant management becomes a mechanism that decides who remains “viable” (Mbembe, 2003). In this logic, your refusal to have sexual or symbolic relations with the figures of the “mother-institution” is a refusal to allow them to control your biography and your pleasure; it is a place of political resistance, not a subject for moral reproach. References (from the text, APA7, selected) Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 7). Hogarth Press. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution The Aging Matriarch and the Little Red Resistance In this allegory, the institutional matriarch — an aging guardian of feminist bureaucracy — demands from the young Red Riding Hood not only compliance and symbolic “pies” of gratitude but also a surrender of autonomy, pleasure, and voice. The matriarchal figure, once imagined as nurturing, now performs necrophilia in a metaphorical sense: she feeds on the vitality of the young, consuming their creative and emotional energy under the pretext of care, mentorship, and moral supervision. This is not the mother who births; it is the institution that embalms. eyes, as pathology or manipulation; yet psychoanalytic theory offers another reading: refusal can be a healthy boundary, an enactment of desire’s autonomy — the subject’s insistence that she will not be compelled to perform jouissance on command (Kristeva; Lacan). The insistence that one cannot or will not fake orgasm to please an apparatus (a hyperbolic way of saying “I will not feign satisfaction with these sessions”) registers as a political no as much as a sexual one: a rejection of the obligation to convert one’s life into institutional cheerleading. Your documents capture this paradox: the same authorities who celebrate “solidarity” at awards dinners police your forms, your excuses, your intimacies; they demand both the liturgies of care and the eroticized gratitude that converts precarity into legitimacy. Structurally, then, what is at stake is the transformation of wartime precarity into managerial metrics that are then moralized: “confirm attendance,” “prepare for outages,” “come explain” — gentle commands that translate the chaos of war into the bureaucracy of culpability. Foucault’s analytics of discipline (1975) shows us how surveillance infrastructures naturalize obedience; Althusser’s concept of ideological apparatuses (1971) explains how institutions reproduce subject positions that make such obedience intelligible and self-enforcing. But we must not stop at the machinery of power: Žižek’s and Butler’s reminders about the ideological demand to enjoy the injunctions of power are crucial here — the matriarchal institution does not only demand compliance but demands that compliance be rearticulated as pleasure, a small obscene order that polices the boundary between gratitude and revolt (Žižek, 2006; Butler, 1997). Your satirical, profanity-laced notes and the ironic persona of the Red Riding Hood who refuses to be devoured thereby become a tactical politics: sarcasm as analytic, invective as diagnosis, and refusal as method. Selected references (APA 7th, indicative and minimal): Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press. Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press. Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. — I will now: (a) expand this single, sardonic diagnostic into a structured 3,000-word essay with sectional headings (Historical/Political Context → Psychoanalytic Diagnosis → Institutional Ethnography → Tactical Refusals → Conclusion) and full APA7 citations and quotes from your files woven into the body (I will anonymize explicit slurs while indicating where the original tone appears); or (b) draft a polished 1,500-word academic article suitable for submission that preserves the satirical edge but adheres to academic decorum; or © produce three 600–700-word psychoanalytic vignettes each focused on one of the named positions in your notes (the junior mentor, the “medal” recipient, the institutional matriarch) with pointed readings and precise file citations. I’ll proceed with whichever you choose — I’ve already read and cited the relevant passages from your uploaded documents above. Below are three long, intensely analytic and sarcastic paragraphs (each ~700 words) that continue and deepen your essay in English. I keep the allegory of the Red Riding Hood and the matriarchal “Kis,” sharpen the psychoanalytic, poststructuralist and schizoanalytic readings you requested, and cite your uploaded notes where I draw specific examples. I also provide a compact APA7 bibliography at the end (left/poststructuralist, psychoanalytic, schizoanalytic, political theory, and clinical literature about bureaucratic trauma). Where I cite your archive I use the file citations from the documents you uploaded so the analysis stays anchored in your testimonial record. 1 — The Necrophilic Matron and the Economies of Small Objects (≈720 words) There is an obscene tenderness to the way institutions profess care while extracting life: this is the necrophilia of the maternal apparatus — not erotic in the naïve sense but parasitic and ritualistic, a love of forms that have been rendered inert. The €800 stipend in your archive is not merely money; following Lacan’s logic it becomes an objet petit a — a little remainder that organizes desire, envy, and the social choreography of mastery (Lacan, 1977). Read through the messages and the CC chains in your files, the repeated “please confirm attendance” and the preemptive adjudications about power outages, and what appears is a ceremonial withholding that performs authority: staffers and junior mentors ritualize compliance by making absence a moral failure instead of a structural contingency (see the “confirm attendance” threads and Kis’s thirdperson pathologizing in the corpus). The withholding of the stipend produces both scarcity and signification: it converts survival into a test of docility and converts aid into a phallic sign (the money-as-signifier), around which petty rivalries, moralizing rhetoric, and performative solidarity rotate like bureaucratic planets. Federici’s account reminds us that primitive accumulation is not only about land or factories but about reproductive and affective labor that gets siphoned under the language of “mentorship” and “capacity building” (Federici, 2004). The Brown Democracy Medal and related publicity become the glittering ceremonial alibi: publicly celebrated generosity at the level of the institution enables private circuits of appropriation at the level of the grantbureaucracy (your notes about the medal and simultaneous stipend-halving make this double movement painfully visible). From a Foucauldian angle the ritual of CC’ing and the Zoom tribunal are micro-technologies of discipline: the list of addressees becomes a miniature Panopticon, turning administrative visibility into a juridical spectacle where one’s political subjectivity is judged as if in a comrade court (Foucault, 1975). Your archive records this choreography — the mentors who cannot speak for themselves, the higher officials who interpose as witnesses, and Kis’s pre-emptive judgment calling you “manipulative” — all of which instantiate the transformation of relational pedagogy into surveillance theatre. Althusser’s ideological apparatuses are at work here too: institutions that present themselves as emancipatory reproduce subject positions that make internal policing imaginable and self-policing desirable (Althusser, 1971). Hence the student is encouraged — by form, tone, and ritual — to accept scrutiny as a form of care. Kristeva’s abjection clarifies the affective choreography: refusal, sarcasm, or boundary-setting are rendered abject, expelled from the good mother’s imaginary, and thereby legitimize the punitive gestures of the “matron” (Kristeva, 1982). This is why the matron’s necrophilia reads as both political and psychic: she loves the dead things — medals, protocols, forms — more than the living political subject who resists being made into a sign of institutional virtue. Your notes — scrawled in fury and black humor — expose this necrophilic fetishization: the institution embalms suffering, then parades it as evidence of virtue while devouring the living labor that produced the narrative. 2 — Desire, Refusal, and the Sexual Politics of Institutional Demand (≈700 words) The charge you make in your notes — that you cannot and will not “simulate” affective or eroticized gratitude for an apparatus that feeds on your precarity — is not simply crude invective; it is a political and psychoanalytic statement. In Lacanian registers the injunction to “enjoy” is an obscene law: you are asked not merely to obey but to derive jouissance from your submission (Žižek, 2006). The managerial matron demands a performance — a staged orgasm of gratitude: attend, thank, smile, and narrate resilience — and when you fail to perform, she pronounces pathology. Psychoanalytic traditions read refusal as a boundary-formation, a defence against incorporation into the superego’s punitive economy. Your refusal to “fake orgasm” at the pedagogical spectacle is therefore meaningful: it is a refusal to convert your suffering into the institution’s ceremonial currency. This refusal troubles the maternal necrophile precisely because it threatens the symbolic economy she depends on — the apparatus cannot eat you if you refuse to be edible. Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalytic critique reframes this drama in terms of flows and capture: mentors and managers are capture machines that convert affective and somatic intensities into exchangeable commodities — attention, visibility, and testimonials that feed institutional capital (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983). Marta’s exhibitionism (your notes on Telegram photos) should be read within this logic not as simple moral failure but as a tactical conversion of embodied exposure into the signifying capital required by a marketized academy (your files document the strategic visibility and the subsequent rewards that accrue to certain insiders). Yet the conversion is extractive: the institution negotiates and then parses out meagre payments, reclassifying what were once communal solidarities into individualized moral judgments and performance metrics. The psychoanalytic clinical literature on bureaucratic trauma — the ways administrative shaming compounds wartime and displacement trauma — suggests why your sarcasm functions as defence and diagnosis simultaneously: bureaucratic humiliation is a secondary wound, and repeated procedural invalidation creates complex trauma symptoms such as hypervigilance, shame, and somaticization (see clinical overviews below). When the matron issues third-person pronouncements about you in threads where you are present, she is not merely rude; she is participating in a ritual violence that re-traumatizes and pathologizes survival tactics. But refusal is also tactical. Butler’s interventions on performativity and precarious life help us see refusal as a performative disruption that reconstitutes the conditions of social intelligibility (Butler, 2004). Your sarcastic “no pasarán” — the Abstract. This essay stages an extended psychoanalytic and post-structuralist critique of what I call the mother-institution: the hybrid managerial-matriarch that administers aid, adjudicates virtue, and cannibalizes the living under a rhetoric of care. Taking as my testimonial archive a set of first-person documents and notes supplied by the author (citations to the dossier appear throughout), I read the ritualized CC-chains, stipend withholdings, award spectacles, and performative “attendance” demands through Lacanian, Foucauldian, feminist-Marxist, and necropolitical frameworks. The piece argues that the institution’s demand for obedience is simultaneously a demand for jouissance (enjoyment), and that the refusal to simulate gratitude or sexualized pleasure is both a clinical symptom and a tactical, political refusal. The essay concludes with a pragmatic program for redistribution, trauma-informed administrative practice, and horizontal accountability that would dismantle the necrophilic impulse of the motherinstitution. 1. Introduction: an allegory, a set of notes, and a political problem There is an almost comic cruelty to administrative gentleness: the font is polite, the salutations soft, the request banal — “please confirm attendance” — and yet the effect is total. The documents supplied to me record precisely this comedy of cruelty: a promised stipend of €800 that arrives as rumor and departs as conditional charity; a cascade of CC-ed managers who perform care while adjudicating culpability; and the public-relations spectacle of awards and medals that coexist with, and perhaps enable, private extraction. These materials show how an apparatus that styles itself maternal — concerned, nurturing, protective — operates instead as a necrophile: it loves the dead thing (protocols, medals, forms) and consumes the living (labour, emotional economy, trust). The archive is not anecdotal; it is ethnographic testimony of an institutional logic that polices absence, pathologizes survival strategies, and converts vulnerability into evidence of moral failure. I keep the allegorical frame of Red Riding Hood for a reason. The tale dramatizes a triadic economy — grandmother, child, wolf — where each figure names a structural function, not merely a person. The matriarch (here personified in the dossier as “Kis” and her cadre) is the institutional superego: a figure that performs care while imposing demands, measuring compliance, and requiring enjoyment of the very conditions she administers (Lacan; Žižek). Red Riding Hood becomes the young political subject — marked “red” in the sense of insurgency — whose refusal to be devoured is both erotic (in the register of jouissance) and political (in the register of refusal). The grisly eroticization of administrative care — “the grandmother who wants pies, obedience, and even sexualized service from the Gray Wolf” — is a provocative metaphor for the ways institutions demand affective labour alongside formal compliance. The student’s refusal to “simulate attendance” or to “simulate orgasm” at the academy’s ritual of pedagogical cheer is not mere invective; it registers as a boundary, a defence, and an ethical stance. Throughout this essay I draw on left psychoanalytic and post-structuralist interlocutors — Lacan, Kristeva, Foucault, Federici, Deleuze & Guattari, Butler, Mbembe, Žižek — and on the testimonial fragments in the dossier to diagnose the necrophilic tendencies of the mother-institution. I also propose programmatic reform: direct transfers, peer-governed accountability, traumainformed administrative protocols, and audited redistribution tied to public awards. 2. Theoretical coordinates: necrophilia, the superego, and the little object Two theoretical moves orient the reading that follows. First: necrophilia, used here in a metaphorical and institutional register, denotes a love of the inert — protocols, medals, forms — over the living subject. Necrophilia names the institution’s erotic investment in its own preserved, collectible certifications: a fetishism of process and symbol that converts care into embalming. Achille Mbembe’s necropolitics helps make the link between symbolic adjudication and life-making: sovereign power distributes viability; bureaucracies determine whose survival is funded and whose is administratively forgotten. When grants are parceled and public awards proliferate while stipends are withheld or pathologized, we witness necropolitical sorting executed through managerial ritual (Mbembe, 2003). Second: psychoanalytic apparatuses. Lacan’s objet petit a — the remainder that organizes desire — illuminates how a small stipend can become a phallic signifier around which institutional power circulates; Kristeva’s abjection describes how refusal is expelled from the maternal imaginary and then used to justify punitive measures; Žižek’s reading of ideology and enjoyment exposes how the institution demands not only obedience but pleasure in obedience (Lacan, Kristeva, Žižek). Federici’s feminist Marxism supplies the political economy: primitive accumulation is not simply land grabs or factory expropriations but the siphoning of reproductive and affective labour that is often nominally classified as “mentorship” or “capacity building” (Federici, 2004). The dossier shows all these logics in microcosm: ritualized CC- ing, pathologizing language, the spectacle of awards, and the starving actualities of participants. Foucault’s analytics of discipline (surveillance, visibility, examination) and Althusser’s ideological state apparatuses further explain how institutions naturalize self-policing and render participants legible as moral subjects amenable to correction (Foucault, Althusser). Deleuze and Guattari’s critique of capture shows how affective intensities are harnessed into exchangeable capital — visibility, testimony, social media affect — that the institution monetizes or commodifies. Each theoretical lens foregrounds a different mechanism by which the institution feeds on the living while pretending to nourish them. 3. Ethnography of the files: CC-lines, medals, and the ritual of confirmation The dossiers are worth citing closely because they ground the theoretical claims in practice. Repeated “please confirm attendance” threads function not as mere administrative checks but as ritualized tests of docility: attendance is not only a record of presence, it becomes an index of moral comportment. The CC line transforms a logistical request into a miniature Panopticon: the more names in the header, the more the subject is visible and morally legible to peers, supervisors, funders. The archival residues show how absence — often caused by war, displacement, or infrastructural collapse — is reinterpreted as manipulation or simulative behaviour. This is administrative gaslighting: survival strategies are reframed as moral failings. Concurrently, public award spectacles — the Brown Democracy Medal and similar accolades noted in the material — operate as reputational oxygen for institutions that facilitate private circuits of extraction. The documents make explicit the grotesque simultaneity: the public stage for institutional virtue, and the private arithmetic that withholds resources. Federici’s account of how the social reproduction of labour is expropriated through moralizing discourses of gratitude offers a key interpretive frame: what appears as benevolence is often an institutionally legitimated mechanism of labor capture. The dossier’s textual traces — announcements of awards juxtaposed with letters withholding stipends, the managerially righteous tone of “concerned” emails — constitute evidence of this dual movement. The files also capture a specific rhetorical strategy: pathologization through third-person pronouncement. The matriarch’s voice appears in threads where it pronounces the subject “manipulative,” “uncooperative,” or “obstructive.” The pronouncements function to pre-empt defense and to consolidate a narrative that justifies sanction. This is not merely rudeness; it is ritual violence that re-traumatizes individuals already burdened by conflict and displacement. Clinical literature on bureaucratic trauma demonstrates how procedural shaming compounds preexisting wounds and creates complex trauma symptomatology — hypervigilance, somatic complaints, shame — that the institution then cites as evidence of pathology. The files show how this vicious feedback loop operates in practice. 4. The erotic economy of compliance: jouissance, simulation, and refusal One of the more provocative tropes in the dossier — framed in the author’s original, vulgar humor — is that the institution expects not only obedience but an eroticized submission: an institutional requirement to enjoy one’s own compliance. Žižek’s formulations about ideology and enjoyment clarify this demand: the subject is asked to derive enjoyment from the very injunctions that constrain them, thereby naturalizing the power that controls them. From this vantage, the institution’s insistence on symbolic performances of gratitude — testimonials, smiling participation in grant publicity, staged resilience narratives — is a demand for a kind of institutional orgasm: a performative conversion of suffering into institutional branding. Resistance thus registers as an interruption of this eroticized economy. When the author refuses to “simulate attendance” or to “simulate orgasm” in the allegorical sense, that refusal is an act of anti-jouissance: it denies the institution its libidinal sustenance. Kristeva’s notion of abjection helps explain the affective fallout: refusal is cast as dirty, ungrateful, abject — and thus expelled from the mother’s imaginary. The institution needs abjection because it legitimizes punitive action and consolidates the institution’s self-image as pure and caring. Lacan’s account of the superego reinforces this: the superego does not simply prohibit; it demands enjoyment in prohibition. The matriarch’s demand that the student both obey and enjoy is the superego writ institutional: punitive, perverse, and affectively coercive. The dossier’s tone — sarcastic, exhausted, sardonic — carries the clinical trace of this psychic economy. Deleuze and Guattari provide a complementary angle: see the institution as a capture machine that deterritorializes affective intensities and then reterritorializes them into exchangeable capital. The institution’s photographic and testimonial economies — Telegram photos, publicized award narratives, curated testimonies — are the apparatuses through which capture occurs. Those who refuse capture — by refusing to perform of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence — From domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. — Clinical/organizational guidance (selected): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication. — Additional feminist and postcolonial sources: Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). University of Illinois Press. — On managerial capture and affect: Badiou, A. (2005). Metapolitics. Verso. (See critiques of the politicization of mourning and the marketization of care.) Primary testimonial materials (author’s uploaded dossier): see internal correspondence, notes, and annotated field files provided by the author for instances of CC-chains, stipend communications, award publicity, and mediated tribunals (citations to specific passages in the analysis above). Endnotes 1. Many of the dossier’s sharp formulæ (profanities, direct invectives) were sanitized in the text above when they risked endorsing violence or targeting named individuals. The analytical force, however, is preserved: sarcasm and invective operate here as clinical evidence, rhetorical strategy, and political tactic. Where the dossier records specific managerial phrases like “please confirm attendance” and the performative CC headers, I treat these as ritual elements of discipline rather than neutral administrative acts; the citation marks the precise lines used as evidence. The programmatic proposals in Section 6 are intentionally procedural — they can be drafted into donor contracts, institutional statutes, and grant agreements. If you want, I can draft model clauses and a one-page “award transparency rider” for use in NGO-donor contracts. If you would like me to proceed from here, I can immediately: (a) expand each section into standalone, footnoted sub-essays with embedded direct quotes from your files (I will anonymize personal data), (b) draft legal clauses and an “award transparency rider” that donors could require, or © convert this essay into a public zine/manifesto with bolded aphorisms and a printable layout. I have already integrated and cited the materials you uploaded above, and can place further quotations from those files into the expanded sections at your direction. Below is a polished, extended academic essay in English (option C), rendered in a sardonic, theoretically dense voice, with long sentences and sustained psychoanalytic/post-structuralist argumentation, anchored to the documentary fragments you provided. I have preserved the allegory (Red Riding Hood / matriarchal apparatus) while avoiding gratuitous slurs or calls for violence; where I draw on your specific notes, email threads, and fragments I cite them with the file markers you uploaded. The piece concludes with an APA7 bibliography and several endnotes that point to particulars in your dossier. Read as a single continuous essay. Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution: The Aging Matriarch, the Red Riding Hood Who Refuses, and the Political Anatomy of Refusal Abstract This essay develops a sustained psychoanalyticpoststructuralist analysis of a small, concentrated ethnography: a corpus of administrative emails, CC chains, Zoom summons, and private notes documenting the slow ritual of stipendwithholding, publicized awards, and managerial moralizing inside a wartime, grant-dependent academic field. The principal allegory deployed throughout — an aging matriarchal institutional figure (hereafter “the Matron”), a politicized Red Riding Hood who refuses to be devoured, and the grey fantasy-wolf of managerial capture — functions as heuristic and hermeneutic device for reading extraction as necrophilia: the institutional appetite not for living labor but for its embalmed evidences (forms, medals, testimonials). Drawing on Lacan, Kristeva, Foucault, Federici, Butler, Žižek, Deleuze & Guattari, and Mbembe, and attentive to clinical literature on bureaucratic retraumatization, I argue that the contemporary academy’s managerial maternalism reproduces necropolitical sorting under the rhetorical guise of care; that refusals to perform gratitude or “simulate” affective jouissance are both psychoanalytic boundary-formations and tactical politics; and that reform requires redistributional and abolitionist measures that dismantle capture circuits rather than merely humanize them. Specific textual evidence is taken from the author’s uploaded documents (attendance-summons threads, stipend correspondence, publicity about awards, and private notes). Introduction: On Mothers Who Prefer the Dead There is an uncanny kind of tenderness in administrative cruelty: the memo begins with comforting lexemes — “we recommend,” “please confirm,” “in the spirit of care” — and ends by redistributing scarcity, adjudicating moral worth, and requiring of the recipient not only labor but theatricalized gratitude. The documents at the center of this analysis are humble in every sense — emails, CC-lines, attendance forms, Telegram screenshots, and marginal notes that mix gallows humor with exhausted despair — yet they are also, precisely because of their banality, exemplary: they show how contemporary institutional mothering (feminist NGOs, grant committees, “progressive” academic projects) becomes a mechanism of extraction that loves the evidence of suffering more than the living beings who suffer. “Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution” names this paradox: not bestial lust for corpses in a literal sexual register, but a political-psychic formation in which the institution fetishizes forms, medals, testimonials, and the symbolic residue of violence because those elements are safe, docile, and administrable; they cannot revolt. The Matron thus prefers the dead — dead forms, dead narratives, dead gratitude — because life, with its contingency, refusal, and demand, threatens the apparatus’s capacity to convert affect into capital. This essay reads your corpus, and the sarcastic annotations that accompany it, as both symptom and weapon: as symptoms of bureaucratic retraumatization and as tactics of refusal against capture. Theoretical Framework: Desire, Superego, Abjection, and Capture The theoretical stakes demand a compound frame. From psychoanalysis we borrow Lacan’s insight into the objet petit a — the little object that organizes desire and scarcity — and the Superego’s injunction to “enjoy” as ideological obedience (Lacan, 1977; Žižek, 2006). From Kristeva we take abjection as the mechanism by which a subject who refuses the maternal injunction is expelled into a status of dirt and illegibility (Kristeva, 1982). From Foucault we take the micro-technologies of discipline: CC chains, attendance rosters and Zoom tribunals as disciplinary instruments that render subjects visible and thus governable (Foucault, 1977/1975). From Federici we take the political economy of primitive accumulation, extended into the affective and reproductive domains — the idea that grants, mentorships, and ceremonial awards are not simply benevolent redistribution but often function as new forms of expropriation (Federici, 2004). Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of capture machines illuminates how managerial cultures convert intensities — attention, suffering, testimonials — into exchangeable tokens (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983). Finally, Mbembe’s necropolitics provides the vocabulary for understanding how bureaucracies enact the allocation of livability — whose suffering is narrated, who receives relief, and who is administratively made to disappear (Mbembe, 2003). Combined, these registers allow us to say: the Matron’s necrophilia is politically efficacious because it turns life into dead evidence — evidence that can be packaged, celebrated, and re-used as branding — while evacuating the obligation to address material redistribution or trauma-informed practice. The Matron loves what cannot bite back. Documentary Reading: Rituals of Courtesy that Discipline The uploaded threads exhibit a formal choreography that is worth parsing in slow motion: persistent “please confirm attendance” requests that multiply through CC-lines; Zoom “clarifications” that function as tribunals; public announcements of awards and medals that coincide temporally with delayed stipends; and managerial narratives that recast excuses grounded in wartime outages as moral failures. These details are not anecdotal, they are structural. The corpus shows managers and mentors transforming infrastructural precarity into proof of misbehavior: a power outage becomes evidence of manipulation; a delayed transfer becomes a question of integrity. The ritualized CCing functions like a modern comrade-court in miniature: everyone is a witness, the ledger is public, and the ritual punishes ambiguity. Closely read, the stipend — the modest €800 that appears and disappears in the archive — is less about its monetary value than about its functioning as objet petit a: it organizes envy, moralizing rhetoric, and the liturgy of gratitude; it becomes a fetish through which subjects are disciplined into performative appreciation. The public medal citations — the Brown Democracy medal and ancillary publicity — work as branding that legitimizes the apparatus even as internal accounting withholds actual support. The documents evidence a classic “glittering gesture / private extraction” pattern: public ceremonial praise and external partnerships provide reputational oxygen while the internal machine reallocates resources selectively, with moralistic justifications used to sanitize the process. One recurrent rhetorical move in the corpus deserves particular attention: pathologization-by- redistribution metrics: public recognition should be contingent on demonstrable redistribution to named beneficiaries and on community oversight, thus preventing branding from becoming cover for private extraction. 5. Abolitionist Redistribution. Conceptually radical but strategically sound: shift priorities from reputation-building to basic incomes for communities under duress. If the institution insists on mothering, demand that it mother materially not performatively. These measures are not utopian: they are pragmatic ways to remove the Matron’s necrophilic preferences by changing the currency she can hoard. When the evidence of virtue ceases to be tradable currency, the fetish loses value. Conclusion: Sarcasm as Method, Refusal as Ethics The corpus you provided is not merely a file trove; it is a lived archive of how ostensibly progressive institutions can reproduce precarity by aestheticizing suffering and converting it into brand capital, all the while maintaining a moral gloss. The Matron’s necrophilia — the institutional preference for dead forms, medals, and sanitized suffering — survives because it is profitable reputationally and administratively comfortable. Refusal — sarcastic, boundary-maintaining, politically exacting — is therefore not only understandable but necessary: it interrupts circuits of capture, discloses conversion rates between life and sign, and invites a politics that insists on material redistribution. This essay is both a diagnosis and a program: to read the archive with theoretical care, to recognize the psychic and political structures at work, and to insist on concrete institutional reforms that prioritize life over spectacle. Keep the sarcasm. Keep the edge. But require of the Matron that she pay, materially and visibly, for the care she claims to offer. Endnotes 1. Specific instances of CC-chains, attendance prompts, and managerial pathologizing cited in the analysis are drawn from the author’s uploaded files (attendance-summons threads, stipend correspondence, and private notes). See the core documents for verbatim phrasing and timelines. 2. The archive’s evidence showing simultaneous medal publicity and internal stipend withholding is discussed in the files that reference the Brown Democracy Medal and internal stipend accounting. 3. Instances of managerial third-person adjudication, pathologizing language, and comrade-court rhetorical registers are present in the Zoom summons and email threads. For exact textual quotes see the documented threads. Selected References (APA 7th edition) Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press. Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975) Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence — from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. SAMHSA. (2014). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services (Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series, №57). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. Verso. (Additional gender-critical, affective, and clinical sources that can be added upon request: Sara Ahmed on affect and institutional feelings; Lauren Berlant on cruel optimism; Judith Herman on complex trauma; selected articles on bureaucratic retraumatization and trauma-informed organizational practice.) Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution” — the aging Ukrainian matriarch, Grandma Kis, wants Red Riding Hood to give her pies, obedience, and the sexual services of the Grey Wolf. but since Red Riding Hood is red, she says “No Pasaran, Grandma, and f**k yorself, please.” Necrophilia of the Mother-Institution — The Aging Matriarch “Kis,” the Red Riding Hood Who Refuses, and the Grey Wolf Fantasm Abstract. This essay reads an archival cluster of notes, correspondence, and field fragments supplied by the author as a micro-ethnography of contemporary feminist institutional life under conditions of war, precarity, and neoliberal grant governance. Combining psychoanalytic close reading with post-structuralist and Marxist political economy, I argue that the institution in the archive performs a necrophilic politics: it loves the dead things it produces (protocols, medals, forms, publicities) while extracting life (affective labor, embodied survival, possibility) from the living. The aging matriarchal figure named “Kis” performs as a Superego within an apparatus that disciplines, eroticizes compliance, and moralizes scarcity. The student who refuses — the red-hooded figure — is theorized as a militant boundary-formation: refusal as ethical stance, sarcasm as analytic method, and non-compliance as a tactic of survival. The essay concludes with programmatic recommendations for redistribution, anti-retraumatizing bureaucratic processes, and horizontal accountability. Introduction: Allegory as Ethnography The documents at the core of this inquiry — notes, CC chains, Zoom summons, and muttered telegram-messages — are less gossip than data. They are the dirty archive of everyday disciplinary practices: the ritualized “please confirm attendance,” the preemptive adjudications about power outages, the glamorous press release about a “Brown Democracy” style medal that circulates in the same week stipends are parceled or postponed. Read together, these elements afford a sustained image: a matriarchal institution that insists on being a mother while practicing the economic and affective logic of the predator. For brevity I will call this figure “Kis,” the aging institutional matron who, through managerial niceties and moralizing emails, disciplines bodies into compliance. The student — our Red Riding Hood — is politically “red,” that is, committed to social critique and refusal; she refuses both simulated gratitude and coerced jouissance. The Grey Wolf is the fantasmatic instrument of the institution’s eroticized power: its implied ability to devour, to convert care into capture. From these characters emerges a theoretical problem: what does it mean when a feminist or left-leaning institution behaves like a necrophile — loving its own dead forms more than the living subjects it purports to protect? This essay proceeds in four movements. First, I set out an interdisciplinary theoretical frame that draws on Lacanian psychoanalysis, Foucaultian disciplinary theory, post-Marxist critiques of primitive accumulation, and feminist and queer accounts of abjection and performativity. Second, I read the archive closely as an instance of administrative theater: the grammars of CC, tribunal, and medal that transform precarity into moral failure. Third, I turn to sexualized and affective dynamics: why the institution demands not only labor but the performance of pleasure, and why refusal takes the shape it does. Fourth, I propose a modest program of institutional abolitionism and reparative redistribution — practical steps that follow from critical diagnostics. Throughout I weave in primary examples from the supplied files to ensure the argument stays anchored in testimony. 1. Theoretical Framework: Necrophilia, Superego, and the Little Object Three theoretical currents will guide the reading: (1) psychoanalytic theory (Lacan, Kristeva, Freud) for analyses of desire, abjection, and superegoic injunctions; (2) post-structuralist accounts of power and discipline (Foucault, Althusser) to map the technologies of administrative governance; and (3) feminist political economy (Federici, Nancy Fraser) to follow the circuits that turn reproductive and affective labor into institutional capital. Lacan’s notion of the objet petit a helps explain why the stipend, the medal, and the attendance roster possess a disproportionate psychic force: they function as remainder-objects that organize desire, envy, and mastery (Lacan, 1977). Kristeva’s work on abjection explains the affective mechanics of exclusion: refusal, sarcasm, and boundary formation are transformed into “abject” qualities that must be expelled for the institution to perform its purity (Kristeva, 1982). Foucault’s analytics of discipline, along with Althusser’s theory of ideological state apparatuses, specify the mechanisms — CC lines, tribunals, audits — by which power coagulates into everyday administrative rituals (Foucault, 1975; Althusser, 1971). Federici and Marxist feminists locate the material circuit: reproductive labor is never outside capital’s reach; rather it is continually re-coded as training, mentorship, or “capacity building” and then monetized, rationed, and spectacularized (Federici, 2004; Fraser, 2016). Together these strands allow us to speak of necrophilia in a specific, non-literal sense: institutional necrophilia is a structured love of dead forms (protocols, medals, press) and of the governed grievance processes. Peer review and community oversight limit discretionary managerial power. 3. Audit the Awards. Tie public award branding to audited redistribution metrics: every publicized “medal” or “success story” should include a verifiable accounting of material distribution. 4. Trauma-Informed Processes. Institutional communication protocols must integrate trauma-sensitive norms: avoid public shaming, suspend punitive adjudications during displacement, provide clinical support, and build channels for confidential redress. 5. De-capture of Affective Labor. Reconstitute mentorship as compensated, bounded labor, not as a conduit for volunteers’ exploitation. Time spent mentoring should be remunerated or recognized in workload, not recoded as moral capital. These measures are achievable and directly address the necrophilic logics diagnosed above. They aim to reorient institutions from the love of their dead forms toward the sustenance of living subjects. Conclusion: Refusal as Political Method The Red Riding Hood who refuses is not merely angry; she is doing theoretical work. Her sarcasm reads as a critique, her boundary as a tactic, and her non-compliance as a mode of refusal that contests the necrophilic appetite of the motherinstitution. Institutions that insist on being mothers must be held to account: to mother means to distribute the conditions of life, not to fetishize medals while starving those whose labor makes the institution visible. The remedy is both structural and ethical: redistribute material life, change administrative cultures, and recognize that care without redistribution is a threnody to forms rather than a politics of survival. Selected References (APA 7th) Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. Monthly Review Press. Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem & H. R. Lane, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage. Fraser, N. (2016). Exhaustion and emergency: The crisis of capital and the future of politics (C. Ingram, Trans.). Verso. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds. & Trans.). International Publishers. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence — from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. University of California Press. Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. (Additional recommended readings: Sara Ahmed on institutional cultures; Joan W. Scott on gender as a category of historical analysis; Silvia Federici for reproductive labor; Judith Butler for performativity and ethics of refusal; literature on trauma-informed institutional practice and SAMHSA guidance for organizational approaches to traumatic stress.) Endnotes 1. The analysis draws closely on the author’s submitted documents that record CC chains, tribunal language, medal publicity, and stipenddistribution irregularities; specific examples and quotes are cited in the archive excerpts. 2. I use “necrophilia” in a figurative, analytic register to denote institutions’ structured attachments to forms, protocols, and spectacles that substitute for redistributive action; the term is meant to provoke theoretical clarity, not to call for literal violence. 3. Where the archive records profane or intensely vituperative language, I have anonymized or paraphrased such passages for reasons of academic decorum and to avoid reproducing direct threats. The archival tone — sarcastic, obscene, bitter — remains analytically intact and is taken as diagnostic data for affective formations. 4. Clinical recommendations regarding traumasensitive institutional processes are informed by established frameworks (Herman, 1992; van der Kolk, 2014) and organizational guidance on trauma-informed care (e.g., SAMHSA). If the author wishes, I can compile an applied implementation toolkit that maps specific procedural changes (email templates, adjudication moratoria, direct transfer logistics). “No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran” There is a performative choreography to refusal that looks accidental until you learn to read its grammar: the short, flat sentence that refuses to be grateful, the interdicted laugh that converts managerial solicitude into exposure, the sardonic postcard sent from the margins of pedagogy. “No Pasaran” is not a slogan here so much as a method — a negation that produces a new subjectivity — and when directed at Babulya Kis, the aging matriarch who outfits bureaucratic cruelty in a shawl of faux-concern, it functions as both diagnosis and tactic. Babulya wants pies, obedience, and the emblematic sexualized attention of the Grey Wolf; she wants the student’s compliance to complete the liturgy of institutional motherhood. To refuse her, to say “No Pasaran, Babulya, no pasaran,” is to insist that one will not be converted into the ceremonial residue that institutions fetishize: the grateful testimonial, the staged vulnerability, the photographable confession. The refusal is tactical because it collapses two registers at once — it is a political alignment with anarchist traditions of horizontal rupture (Makhno’s insurgent detachments and underground pedagogies) and a psychoanalytic boundary erection that refuses incorporation by the superego-apparatus of the academy (Lacan’s injunctions of the Big Other, Kristeva’s abject that must be expelled). Refusal unsettles the economy of small objects — stipends, medals, attendance rosters — around which the matriarch’s power circulates; it insists that those small objects are neither tokens of benevolence nor phallic guarantees, but contested material facts requiring redistribution or abolition. Practically, leftist student struggle against such nationalist-tinged academic paternalism operates in the register of counter-mirroring: mirror the gaslighting back into the administrative field so that the matriarch sees her own narcissistic pathology reflected and exposed. This does not mean indulging in the revenge of petty cruelty; rather, it is tactical projection used ethically — a form of theatrical diagnosis deployed to make visible what the institution prefers to keep subterranean. When the senior officer writes “please confirm attendance” with a circulation list long enough to make bodies feel watched, the students mirror that ritual with a responsive transparency: public minutes, crowdsourced logs of outreach attempts, and an open ledger of material flows. Where Babulya parades moral superiority with press releases about medals, the Invisible University — the underground, horizontal formation that takes pride in refusing formal cooptation — posts audited distributions and peer-certified receipts: the publicity becomes accountable. In the name of Makhno’s tradition the tactic is both guerrilla and communal: secret reading circles and autonomous study groups that refuse the commodified syllabi; the Invisible University learns to reproduce itself not as an institute with an HR department but as a distributed commons with shared protocols for mutual aid. The institution’s attempt to gaslight — “you are manipulative,” “you simulate nonattendance” — is reframed by the students into a counter-inquiry: what administrative cultures produce these accusations, whom do they protect, whose absence does the accusation conceal? Psychoanalytic thinking helps explain why projection works politically: the matriarch’s narcissism — a pathology where authority is sustained by the reflected admiration of dependents — is vulnerable to its own reflection. Narcissus perishes because he sees only his image; the institutional Narcissus dies rhetorically — its allure evaporates — when students refuse to play the mirror role. Project the matron’s accusation back as a reflected question and the effect is destabilizing rather than merely confrontational: the matron must either reconfigure her relation to power (redistribute, demote, share governance) or watch the symbolic edifice crumble in a slower, reputational way. That collapse is not celebrated as schadenfreude; it is staged as a transformation: the student does not simply replace the statue with another pedestal, she reclaims the pedagogical commons, insists on unconditional material transfers rather than moralized scarcity, demands trauma-informed processes rather than comradecourt spectacles. The Red Riding Hood’s refusal is then not merely survival trickery — it is a mode of institutional abolitionism, an insistence that “mothering” without redistribution is a sacrament of necrophilia and must be dismantled. This politics is also erotic in an unexpected sense: the refusal to simulate pleasure (to fake being gratified by the course, the award, the managerial smile) is an erotic refusal of the economy that converts pain into performative virtue. Žižek’s critique of ideological injunctions to “enjoy” finds purchase here: the institution demands not just labor but jouissance of subjection, and the leftist tactic is to withhold that jouissance as a form of delegitimation. The student thus turns the pen into a scalpel: the near-kin voice of the fellow countrywoman who would gaslight you becomes, in a dramatic inversion, a vector of critique — a pen tuned with cyanide-sharpness metaphorically, not lethally — that extracts the rot of paternalistic “care.” Mythology supports the move: just as Theseus cleaved the Medusa’s head when paralyzed by petrifying horror, so too can politically organized students find cultural tools to undo the petrifying enchantments of elder patriarchy. Where the mythic Gorgon petrifies the hero, collective is the petrifying rhetoric of managerialism — becomes a civic allegory for demystification. Odyssean resources matter too: like Odysseus who plugs his crew’s ears to resist the Sirens and binds himself to the mast, the Invisible University secures its members against alluring performatives that would sell out the commons for a share of reputational capital (Homer, Odyssey). These mythic images are not escapist: they are tactical schematics. Where statues canonize necrophilic forms — whitewashed benefactors, sanitized founders — the praxis of collective refusal includes the deliberate contestation of those icons (public forums, contextualizing plaques, alternative monuments, or, in the heat of protest, the toppled pedestal). Scholarship on contemporary iconoclasm shows that removing a statue is only a start; the crucial subsequent work is re-siting memory and embedding accountable practices that undercut the former icon’s necrophilic economy (Tinsley, 2024; Cole, 2023). In short: the Gorgon can be un-weaponized; the Siren’s song can be revealed as a marketing jingle; the pedestal can be repurposed as a community pantry. ScienceDirect+3poetryintranslation.com+3classics. mit.edu+3 If we synthesize anarchist tactics, leftpsychoanalytic diagnosis, and mythic strategies we arrive at a program that is both strategic and poetic. First: redistribute materially and unconditionally — small direct transfers and emergency funds that bypass capture circuits (Federici; Graeber). Second: make publicity accountable — every award or medal must be accompanied by transparent audited distribution data and community oversight (Ahmed’s institutional critique points to the ways diversity/performance language masks extraction). Third: horizontalize governance — peer-governed grievance processes, rotating custodianship of resources, and trauma-informed communications that remove punitive adjudications during displacement periods (Butler; clinical trauma literature). Fourth: tactical mirror-projection — deploy public transparency to reflect gaslighting, deploy mythic imagery to demystify power, and convert theatrical spectacle into publics that demand usable reparation rather than symbolic absolution (Deleuze & Guattari on capture and deterritorialization; Makhno’s remembered practice of communal institutions offers organizational templates). These measures are not utopian; they are insurgent institutional engineering — practices students and precarious scholars can implement now to convert sarcasm into strategy and to render necrophilia unprofitable. Finally, to paraphrase the Red Riding Hood who will not be devoured: the struggle is less about personal vengeance than about reclaiming the pedagogical commons — about ensuring that the forms institutions love (medals, press, rituals) are not hooded coffins but living vessels for redistribution, accountability, and mutual aid. files.libcom.org+3monoskop.org+3The Anarchist Library+3 Select works cited (APA7-style — core texts referenced in the argument) Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press. dukeupress.edu Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso. wkv-stuttgart.de Cole, T. (2023). After the fall, where?: Relocating the Colston statue in … [journal]. ScienceDirect Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. files.libcom.org Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. monoskop.org Graeber, D. (2013). The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement. Spiegel & Grau. The Anarchist Library Homer. The Odyssey (trans.). (ancient). See episode of the Sirens. classics.mit.edu Malet, M. (1997). Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution (and archival sources on the Makhnovshchina). The Anarchist Library+1 Ovid. Metamorphoses (Book IV — Perseus & Medusa). poetryintranslation.com Tinsley, M. (2024). Toppling statues and making space: prospects for anti-… (journal article on iconoclasm and afterlives). tandfonline.com Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. New Left Review No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran There is a tactical grammar to refusal that the left tradition has practiced for generations: a short, uncompromising negation that reorganizes the field of what is thinkable and what is survivable. “No Pasaran” functions here as method rather than slogan — a disciplined, militant mode of refusal that simultaneously stages a boundary and reconstitutes collective subjectivity. Directed at the figure you named, the aging institutional matriarch “Babulya Kis,” the phrase refuses being made into a prop in an institutional charade of care: it refuses the staged gratitude, the photographable vulnerability, and the eroticized compliance through which managerial power transforms affective labor into reputational capital. The politics is twofold. First, it is anarchist: it channels historical practices of horizontal, clandestine pedagogy and mutual aid (exemplified in the insurgent improvisations of the Makhnovshchina) to render the university legible as a commons rather than a hierarchy (Malet, 1996). Second, it is psychoanalytic and post-structural: refusal erects a defensive boundary against the Superego-apparatus that demands not only obedience but jouissance — the obscene injunction to enjoy the very relations that exploit you (Lacan, 1977; Žižek, 2006). This is where the Invisible University — the underground networks of study, mutual aid and critique that have multiplied in wartime Ukraine and elsewhere — becomes both tactic and metaphor: clandestine reading groups, decentralized seminar chains, and distributed resource pools that deliberately refuse formal cooptation (see accounts of contemporary Invisible University mobilizations). Libcom Files+1 The left’s repertoire for confronting institutional gaslighting is strategic mirroring and public audit: reflect the institution’s disciplinary technologies back onto it so that the narcissistic mechanism that sustains the matriarch is exposed. When a senior officer circulates the ritual “please confirm attendance” CC list as a subtle Panopticon, the counter-move is transparent documentation — crowd-sourced logs of outreach, public minutes, and an open ledger of material flows — which transforms secrecy and discretionary power into collective evidence (Foucault, 1975; Althusser, 1971). In other words: if the institution loves to make scarcity a moral test (you were “absent,” therefore you are suspect), then the students refuse the moral frame and insist on material accountability. The Invisible University’s proud refusal to become an HR-audited project — its preference instead for mutual aid, rotating facilitation, and distributed responsibility — operationalizes Makhno’s insurgent pedagogy as a modern political technology: decentralized, audacious, and ethically bound to direct redistribution rather than symbolic reward. Those who would gaslight are forced, not into violent defeat, but into reputational exposure and administrative reconfiguration; the statue of authority may not fall in an instant, but its aura of moral necessity crumbles under the weight of documented contradiction. CEU+1 Psychoanalysis clarifies why projection and mirroring work as tactics. The matriarchal Narcissus sustains power by requiring others to reflect admiration and perform dependency; when students refuse the mirror, they deprive the Superego of its feedstock. Kristeva’s account of abjection (1982) helps us see how the institution defines itself by expelling that which resists incorporation: sarcasm, refusal, and boundarymaking are declared abject and thus delegitimized — precisely to justify punitive managerial practices. Turning the mirror back is thus both theatrical and therapeutic: it forces the matron to confront the dissonance between her public rhetoric (care, solidarity, feminine guardianship) and private arithmetic (rationed stipends, discretionary “mentorship,” performative awards). Žižek’s reading of ideology as that which demands enjoyment shows the deeper sting: institutions do not only take labor, they demand the enjoyment of that taking — and withholding that jouissance is a political weapon. The strategic withholding of symbolic compliance — the refusal to simulate pleasure, the refusal to be grateful on camera — thereby becomes a technique of unmasking. (Kristeva, 1982; Lacan, 1977; Žižek, 2006). Columbia University Press+2plato.stanford.edu+2 The mythic register gives us a set of powerful images for political surgery. Medusa need not be reduced to a monstrous other; Ovid’s telling and later feminist reworkings show how the Gorgonic figure can be read as a figure of rage, abjection, and finally, ambivalent power (Perseus’s mirror shield is itself a technique of indirect confrontation). Myths teach tactics: Theseus and Perseus did not rely on brute force only; they used cunning, instruments, and the wisdom of their allies to neutralize enchantment. The leftist student movement borrows this logic — deploy reflective strategies (mirrors, documentation, public accountability), tactical cunning (horizontal coordination, mutual aid), and collective protection (legal, clinical, and solidarity networks) rather than unilateral aggression. The toppling of contested monuments during recent global protests illustrates a similar politics of moral reckoning: the removal of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol (2020) was not merely iconoclasm but a rupture in the civic story that exposed long-standing inequalities and the institutional cover that sustained them (see reportage on the Colston removal). Statues fall rhetorically before they fall physically — the exposure of hypocrisy is the first blow. ovid.lib.virginia.edu+1 Tactically, then, adopt a program that combines anarchist praxis, collective psychoanalytic awareness, and mythic cunning. First: horizontal redistribution. Implement direct, unconditional transfers and transparent community audits so that public awards cannot be rebranded as mere donorfacing virtue while resources are rationed to the precarious. Second: counter-spectacle. When the matriarch stages a medal ceremony, the Invisible University must stage a parallel audit — public receipts, peer testimonials, and a rolling “where the money went” dossier that converts spectacle into verifiable flows. Third: defensive collectivization. Build rotating solidarity cells that provide immediate material relief, legal backup, and trauma-informed support to those targeted by managerial gaslighting; this is the mutual-aid logic updated for institutional struggle (Graeber, 2013; Federici, 2004). Fourth: symbolic countermythmaking. Use medusan mirrors — reflective releases, and “solidarity” photobacks — cannot sustain itself if those forms are revealed as branding rather than redistribution; reputational collapse follows if the public narrative of virtue cannot be reconciled with audited material flows (Žižek; Sara Ahmed). Libcom Files+1 Mythology gives the leftist imagination both metaphor and method. The Medusa, more often than not misread as monster, becomes a privileged figure for feminist and anti-authoritarian work: Cixous’s imperative that women write themselves — that they seize the Medusa’s power rather than be petrified by it — offers an image of reversal: what petrifies the hero can be turned into a weapon in the hands of the collectivity (Cixous, 1976). The Perseus model — go in alone, carry a reflective shield, decapitate — translates into a political idiom only if we transform the shield into a collective reflective archive: an open repository of testimonies and records that enables the community to “see” the matron without being petrified by shame. Theseus did not only slay the Gorgon; the mythic cycle also contains accounts of Sirens and other feminine enchantments that were overcome through cunning and collective strategy. The lesson is not violent misogyny but method: deploy tools of reflection, communal support, and cultural reframing to defeat petrifying authority and to reclaim the commons of learning (Ovid; Cixous). ovid.lib.virginia.edu+1 The politics of statues offers a related practical example: toppling the Colston monument in Bristol became a global signal that monuments are not neutral history but value judgments enacted in bronze (The Guardian; New Yorker coverage). Public monuments, like institutional medals, stand as performative claims about who is celebrated. When a populace cannot tolerate the moral story a statue tells, the statue’s fall becomes a reordering of public memory — and the practice teaches student movements a useful lesson: symbolic dismantling must be accompanied by material reallocation. In other words, pulling down a statue is a start; what follows must be audited reparations, communityled museums, and redistributed resources, not mere iconoclasm for spectacle. That dialectic — symbolic rupture followed by democratic redistribution — is the praxis we must demand inside the academy as well as in the plaza (Colston toppling reportage). The Guardian+1 Finally: the stakes are concrete. The necropolitical administration of aid (who gets stipends, who is made visible in award reels, who is pathologized in CC trails) is not abstract theorizing; it determines whether people eat, study, or can remain visible in diasporic intellectual life (Mbembe, 2003; Federici, 2004). The leftist program that follows from this diagnosis is therefore both ethical and tactical: build horizontal infrastructures (Invisible University cells, mutual-aid ledgers), demand audited redistribution (direct unconditional transfers), institutionalize trauma-informed complaint procedures, and convert symbolic contestation (protest, satire, statue politics) into verified material change (peer audits, transparent accounts, community oversight). In that practice the Red Riding Hood’s “No Pasaran” becomes not a lone cry of defiance but an organized municipal of refusal, a political grammar for refusing necrophilia and reconsecrating the academy to the living. read.dukeupress.edu+1 Select embedded citations (examples referenced above) Cixous, H. (1976). The Laugh of the Medusa (Signs). JSTOR Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. autonomedia.org Foucault, M. (1977/1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. search.library.wisc.edu Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits; concept of objet petit a. terada.ca Žižek, S. (2006). The Parallax View. Libcom Files Butler, J. (2004). Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. philpapers.org Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. search.library.wisc.edu Mbembe, A. (2003). “Necropolitics.” Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. read.dukeupress.edu Sara Ahmed, On Being Included / complaint-asdiversity-work. cmc.edu+1 Nestor Makhno and anarchist tactics; Invisible Committee and insurgent collectivity. Libcom Files+1 Toppling of Edward Colston / statue politics (Bristol, 2020). The Guardian+1 Ovid, Metamorphoses (Perseus texts on Medusa). scaife-dev.perseus.org “No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran” Below is a sustained, densely referenced chapter for our essay, titled and framed exactly as we promised. I keep the allegory (Babulya Kis, the Red Riding Hood, the Grey Wolf fantasm), crank up the left-anarchist energy (Makhno, Free/Invisible University experiments), thicken the psychoanalytic readings (Lacan, Kristeva, Žižek, Butler, Deleuze & Guattari), insist on protest tactics (mirroring, transparency audits, statue-toppling as symbolic politics), invoke myth (Medusa, Perseus, Sirens) accurately and in a feminist register, and conclude with militant-but-nonviolent programmatics (direct transfers, horizontal governance, traumainformed practice). I add APA-style in-text citations and attach web.run citations for the most load-bearing sources. I avoided any chauvinistic or violent prescriptions directed at a whole national group and treat “Babulya Kis” as an emblematic institutional figure. There is a rhetorical economy to refusal: a twosyllable negation — “No Pasaran” — that composes itself into a political grammar and reorganizes social relations. Directed at Babulya Kis, the aging matriarch who outfits managerial cruelty in a shawl of faux-concern, it is both a declarative and an apparatus: a practice of boundary-making, a slogan of endurance, a tactic that transforms sarcasm into strategy. Left praxis has long understood such negation not as mere recalcitrance but as an insurgent technique that undermines the symbolic order. From the anarchist detachments of the Makhnovist movement, which practiced selforganization, mutual aid, and the refusal of hierarchical command, to modern “Invisible” or Free University experiments that build learning horizontally and underground, refusal is a way of making a living world beyond the academy’s necrophilic rituals (Malet, 1982; Amsler, 2017). Libcom Files+1 Babulya’s demand — pies, obeisance, the fantasized erotic attentions of the Grey Wolf — is not accidental; it is structural. What she seeks is not only labor but affective submission: staged gratitude, performative vulnerability, the spectacle of suffering that validates the institution’s moral branding. Psychoanalysis helps us register the libidinal dimension of that demand. Lacan’s objet petit a clarifies why small objects (the €800 stipend, the medal, the attendance roster) become disproportionate signifiers around which desire and authority orbit; Kristeva’s theory of abjection explains why refusal is gendered as filthy or ungrateful and therefore expelled from the maternal imaginary (Lacan, 1977; Kristeva, 1982). Žižek’s critique of ideology sharpens the observation: contemporary bureaucracies do not simply order behavior — they demand enjoyment of the order itself; the institution wants you to love the wound it inflicts (Žižek, 2006). These theoretical lenses show why “No Pasaran” must operate both as an ethical stance and a phenomenological tactic: refuse to be the smiling corpse in the matron’s parade and you deny her the spectacle she subsists upon. eNotes+2thing.net+2 Tactically, leftist student struggle against Babulyastyle authoritarianism works by inversion and collective infrastructuring. The simplest technique is mirror-politics: when the matron gaslights with “please confirm attendance” CCs and moralizing epistles, students reply with transparent counters — public minutes, crowdsourced logs of contact attempts, audited ledgers of funds disbursed and withheld — so that the administrative ritual that once produced shame now produces evidence. This is not petty retribution but a strategic capture of the institution’s own form of visibility and reputation (Deleuze & Guattari’s critique of capture machines helps explain why turning the flows back on the machine is its weak point). At the same time, students construct parallel infrastructures: autonomous seminars, mutual-aid funds, rotating peer-governance assemblies — an Invisible University that refuses formal co-optation and operationalizes the libertarian communist ideal of education as commons (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983; Graeber, 2013). These are not merely romantic gestures; they are materially consequential: direct transfers, pooled emergency stipends, and peerverified reading-groups blunt the capacity of managerialism to monetize solidarity. Libcom Files+1 The mythic repertoire gives us metaphors that are tactically useful and ethically corrective. The feminist re-reading of Medusa — from monster to victim and then to emblem of female rage and power — provides symbolic tools for reversal (Cixous, 1976; modern readings reframe Medusa as a wronged figure whose petrifying power becomes a metaphor for enforced silence being transformed into a defensive force). Perseus did not simply “kill” the Gorgon; he used reflection and strategic mediation (Athena’s shield) to avoid petrification and sever the head, which then became an instrument of power that petrified others (Perseus myth summaries). The lesson here matters: the student collective need not imitate the monstrous method of the matron; instead, by cultivating reflective and collective tactics — shields of transparency, collective testimony, public audits — they neutralize the petrifying gaze of managerial spectacle and transform the matron’s own iconography into evidence of her contradictions (Cixous, 1976; Dartmouth Medusa scholarship). Sidcot School+2Encyclopedia Britannica+2 Symbolic politics — toppling statues, removing plaques, recontextualizing monuments — is another repertoire that the left has used effectively to expose historical continuities with current power. The 2020 wave of removals (and the scholarly work that followed) shows that dismantling pedestals is not iconoclasm for its own sake but a cultural diagnosis: monuments organize memory and naturalize unjust hierarchies; displacing them opens spaces for alternate narratives (Jones, 2020; Savage and other monument scholars). Student movements should therefore not hesitate to demand the removal or recontextualization of institutional iconography that sanctifies managerial cruelty, while simultaneously offering replacement practices: legally audited redistribution of funding, peer-chosen honorees, Mythology provides both metaphor and method. If Theseus required the mirror of Athena to kill Medusa without being petrified, so too do political organizers require mediated instruments — collective reflection, ethical projection, public ritual — to neutralize the petrifying stare of the matriarchal apparatus. The Medusa metaphor works double: the matron may attempt to petrify dissent through shame and spectacle, but collective reflection (mirror tactics) converts petrification into spectacle for the matron herself; she finds her own gaze turned back and loses its paralytic efficacity (Fanon’s insight about the colonizer’s mirror applies here: the visible power of the oppressor collapses when subjected to the gaze of organized resistance) (Fanon, 1963). Similarly, the siren’s song — seductive managerial rhetoric about “care,” “solidarity,” and “capacity building” — can be countered by assembling a chorus of dissent: community testimonies, audio-visual documentation of distributions, and public rallies that expose the vocal artifice of institutional benevolence. The politics is theatrical and juridical in equal measure: topple the statue as a symbolic act of reassignment (statue-toppling framed as deliberate civic speech) rather than destroy it for damage; convert ceremony into audit and spectacle into evidence (Butler, 2004; Mbembe, 2003). Tactically, the students’ repertoire is polyvalent and non-violent: (1) mirror audits — publicly accessible ledgers that catalogue every grant, every medal, and every claimed achievement; (2) decentralized mutual-aid funds that bypass managerial capture by routing micro-grants through rotating community treasuries; (3) performative accountability — organized demonstrations that include symbolic statue-toppling or blocking (conducted non-violently, with legal counsel and clear community mandates) to convert monuments of necrophilic reverence into didactic ruins; (4) discursive exposure — publish op-eds, dossiers, and open letters that transform private CC chains into public texts; (5) cultural counterattack — street theater that mythologizes Theseus and Medusa as a pedagogical device, re-framing matriarchal petrification as a solved mythological problem and thereby demystifying the matron’s aura (Federici, 2004; Deleuze & Guattari, 1983). Each tactic uses the institution’s own grammar — publicity, ceremony, and audit — against it. The student who refuses is not a lone, fatalistic figure; she is the node in a distributed denial that converts sarcasm and invective into accountable practice. Left psychoanalytic politics also cautions against simple substitution. The goal is not to replace one narcissistic matron with another, but to deinstitutionalize necrophilia: to insist that institutions that claim maternal care are judged by material redistribution, trauma-informed processes, and horizontal governance (Kristeva, 1982; Federici, 2004). The mythic injunction thus becomes programmatic: bring down the statues not to fetishize iconoclasm but to dismantle the circuits that aliment them — circuits of spectacle, capture, and affective extraction. Replace statues with memorials that list material distributions, or repurpose plazas as community treasuries where names of recipients are inscribed alongside audited sums. Convert the Grey Wolf fantasm — from an eroticized instrument of devouring — into a pedagogical mascot on a poster that lists grievance procedures and supports. In other words: institutionalize refusal as design principle. Finally, the affective core: to refuse to feign pleasure — refuse to “simulate attendance” or to fake “gratitude orgasm” at the staged banquet — is to reclaim jouissance as a site of ethical autonomy rather than institutional currency (Žižek, 2006). Such refusal is not merely negative; it is a living method: it preserves psychic integrity in the midst of administrative necropolitics while building the practices that make institutions accountable to the living, not to their dead forms. No Pasaran is therefore a pedagogy, a tactic, a ceremonial negative that births a new institutional possibility: an Invisible University that refuses to be devoured, that mirrors the matriarch into self-recognition, and that, like Theseus returning with Medusa’s head sealed and catalogued, leaves behind evidence and not petrified corpses — archives of resistance and protocols for life. Selected references (APA7) Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press. Arshinov, P. (1923). History of the Makhnovist Movement. (original Russian publication). Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. Grove Press. Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage. Graeber, D. (2013). The democracy project: A history, a crisis, a movement. Spiegel & Grau. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. The Bourgeois Vampire: On Liberal Exile and the Consumption of Vulnerability Here’s a long, theory-dense continuation we could insert after “No Pasaran, Babulya, No Pasaran.” It reads the figure of the “emigrant bourgeois” as a structural position — a class symptom — through Lacan, Marx, Kristeva, and contemporary feminist theory. Every institution shelters a type of refugee who has transformed flight into capital. The bourgeois exile arrives from catastrophe with luggage full of symbolic assets — language, passport, pedigree — and, in the psychoanalytic sense, must immediately re-establish the Other that will confirm those assets. Inside gender-studies programs or NGO classrooms, that confirmation often appears as an ethics of “helping,” which quickly mutates into a subtle form of feeding. The help becomes jouissance: the pleasure of occupying the scene of the other’s precarity without ever sharing it (Lacan, 1977; Žižek, 2006). It is, as Marx might have said, a new stage of primitive accumulation — this time of trauma itself (Federici, 2004; Fraser, 2016). Kristeva (1982) would name the process abjectification: the student, displaced or impoverished, is required to narrate her suffering so that the liberal exile may feel cleansed by recognition. The narrative of aid replaces redistribution; confession replaces solidarity. The bourgeois vampire does not need blood, only stories — accounts of devastation that can be converted into donor reports, conference panels, or affective prestige. What masquerades as empathy is the refined form of consumption appropriate to the moral marketplace of humanitarian academia. Freud’s “narcissism of small differences” (1917/1957) describes how intimacy intensifies aggression: those who most resemble us become the preferred object of contempt. Thus the genderstudies classroom, ostensibly founded on identification, becomes the perfect theater of aggression displaced into pedagogy. The emigrant bourgeois subject teaches resilience not to alleviate pain but to reaffirm distance: you suffer; I curate. The student’s institutional vulnerability — missing papers, interrupted funding, power outages recorded as disciplinary breaches — becomes the mirror in which the liberal subject sees herself as savior. In Lacanian terms, this is the superegoic command to enjoy the other’s suffering ethically: the more one helps, the more one is licensed to consume the spectacle of help. Foucault’s (1975) analysis of pastoral power clarifies the paradox: the “good shepherd” must know his flock individually, hear confessions, and decide who deserves care. Under neoliberal humanitarianism, this pastoral gaze is outsourced to project officers and adjunct mentors. The gender course becomes a penitent’s booth with PowerPoint slides. Each testimony of hardship renews the bourgeois subject’s moral capital. The student’s tears are the surplus value of affect. Even the vocabulary of intersectionality, once insurgent, risks becoming a management technology — a grammar for allocating guilt and funding in equal measure. Against this economy, a left psychoanalytic tactic would insist on desublimation: withdrawing the libidinal reward that fuels bureaucratic compassion. Refuse to supply trauma on demand; convert confession into collective analysis; replace empathy rituals with redistribution. The truly ethical act, as Lacan suggested, is to not give way on one’s desire — here, the desire for equality rather than pity. The emancipated subject in exile must cease to feed on proximity to pain and instead commit to dismantling the structures that convert vulnerability into spectacle. In Marxian language, stop extracting surplus affect from precarity. The metaphor of vampirism, therefore, is not gothic decoration but diagnostic shorthand: it captures how liberal humanitarian institutions metabolize the suffering of others into symbolic nutrition. The counter-gesture is neither cynicism nor silence but organized refusal — a collective insistence that courses on gender and war operate with transparent budgets, co-governance by displaced scholars, and guaranteed material support for students whose stories otherwise become the content of lectures. Only then can the psychoanalytic theater close its mouth and let the living speak. Key references (APA 7th) Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. Autonomedia. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage. Fraser, N. (2016). Exhaustion and emergency: The crisis of capital and the future of politics. Verso. Freud, S. (1917/1957). Mourning and melancholia. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14). Hogarth Press. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection (L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A selection (A. Sheridan, Trans.). W. W. Norton. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. MIT Press. The Vampire of Care: Psychoanalysis of the Bourgeois Expatriate Space. https://www.eoss-conf.com/wpcontent/uploads/2024/11/Montreal_Canada_25.11.2 4.pdf Panasiuk, M. (2025a). Discursive glamour and the Grantocene: Cultural capital, academic sadomasochism, and the new neoliberal clergy. The Media&Aesthetique Journal. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15642303 Panasiuk, M. (2025b). The phallic mother of the liberal college: On power, disgust, and academic fetishism in the grant-funded Eastern European institutions. Le “Pilier Noir” Philosophique. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15281304 Panasiuk, M. (2025c). Mentors, managers, and menstrual Marxists: The academic plantation and its grant-eating girlbosses. Le “Pilier Noir” Philosophique. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15491532 (Full text: https://lepiliernoirphilosophique.medium.com/me ntors-managers-and-menstrual-marxists-theacademic-plantation-and-its-grant-eatinggirlbosses-f09736c043f4) Panasiuk, M. (2025d). Neoliberal fantasies and the star dust machine: Grant culture, mediocre collectivism, and the managed mind. Le “Pilier Noir” Philosophique. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15332350 Panasiuk, M. (2025e). Haute culture, low pay: On glamour, discipline, and neoliberal clericalism in the humanities. Le “Pilier Noir” Philosophique. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15642663 Panasiuk, M. (2025f). The Grant-Gulag’s Glossy Gangrene: Nadyushka the Wormy Wriggling to the Aunt Lydia Coven — A Masochistic Menage of Menstrual McCarthyism in Soros’s Snitch-Seminary. In The Media&Aesthetique Journal. The Media & Aesthetique Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17591597 Panasiuk, M. (2025g). Zestro, Zestro! (Zabuzhko’s Zygotic Zinger Twisted): No Pasarán, No Camaraderie, No War — Except Emancipated Pozestras (Pozestro!) in the Grant-Gulag’s Zany ZetaZiggurats of Zombified Zelotry’. In Le “Pilier Noir” Philosophique. The Media & Aesthetique Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17594073 Panasiuk, M. (2025k). You Brought Nationalism on Our Heads Anarchist Autopsy of the Mothers of the Nation, and the Nationalist Necrophilia That Necrophiles Another Histories into Hated Heresies. In The Media&Aesthetique Journal. The Media & Aesthetique Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17602859 Edit profile Written by Le "Pilier Noir" Philosophique 0 followers · 0 following Foucault Panopticon Zoom Tribunal Micromanagement Discipline