Okay.
Let me just copy and paste a random paragraph:

"The psychoanalytic conception of the voice holds that, contrary to materialist or historicist
conceptions, voice exists as a marker of, or a fetishized substitute for, our imagination
of an Other’s subjectivity. This marker’s activity can sometimes be assimilated into our sense
of ‘ego cohesion’ but, when unassimilable to that cohesion, it is often the site of a psychic disturbance and can lead to an ‘erotics’ of the voice.12 The assimilable voice, one that does not
threaten our cohesion, works like a carrier of whole or ‘healthy’ subjectivity which is none the
less susceptible to the vicissitudes of an Other’s desire: Poizat terms this the objectified voice
– voice made figure of our desire (or, for the materialist, voice made object of consumption,
a point to which we shall return shortly). The unassimilable voice, by contrast, is invariably
a site of an uncanny identification (for Freud, ‘das Unheimliche’) likened by Lacan to Freud’s
‘partial’ objects – anus, breasts, faeces, phallus – termed the ‘voice object’, a site of jouissance
(and which Lacan would term an objet petit a). A similar approach can also be found implicitly
in Julia Kristeva’s work on abjection13 and the revolutionary in poetic language14 and,
more explicitly, in Kaja Silverman’s work15 and that of several exponents of the so-called
‘Ljubljana school’ of psychoanalysis: Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar, Alenka Zupancˇic´, Renata
Salecl.16"

[insert signature here]