The Politics of Enjoyment: Jouissance The rise of the extreme right in European elections: Psychoanalytic interpretations
The Politics of Enjoyment: Jouissanceis the second of three blogs on the recent European Election. The first addressed Splitting, and the third will discuss The Collective Unconscious.
Picture: Nigel Farage, leader of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) the overall winners in the British European Election on an anti-European and anti-immigration platform and rising from a position of having zero Members of the British parliament .
Jouissance: Excessive Enjoyment
Jacques Lacan the French psychoanalyst uses the term Jouissance, to refer to a particular kind of excessive enjoyment; an idealized, fantasized enjoyment that is beyond attainment. Joussiance also has the quality of finding pleasure in displeasure, something I will return to. This blog is addressing the rise of the rightwing in many European countries, exemplified by their success in the recent elections. The last blog discussed splitting, and from that psychoanalytic perspective, nationalism and anti-immigration politics are underpinned by unconscious fears and anxieties, whereby the good ‘we’are split off from the bad ‘them’. Most psychoanalytic interpretations are based on a pathological perspective, focusing on fears, anxieties, trauma and subsequence defence mechanisms to cope with our inner conflicts. Lacan however offers another perspective, and brings the question of enjoyment to the fore. Through this lens we see that the rightwing nationalists in Europe have not only tapped into fears, but also into the pleasure that exists in identifying with belonging to a nation. The emotional attachments to national foods, rituals, habits, stories and idealized histories etc. A similar enjoyment can be seen in sports crowds who enjoy partisan songs and collective tribal flag waving to support their local team. However, we must separate national identity and nationalist extreme politics: the first may be a developmental form of identification, building strong communities, ensuring democratic powers are accountable and not taken by a centralizing European super state etc. The latter exacerbates and manipulates the fears described in the previous Splitting blog, but it also perverts the enjoyment and hope that national identity can bring.
The Politics of Enjoyment
In these times of late capitalism, a society of commanded enjoyment‘it is your duty to be happy’, has replaced the prior society of prohibition, ‘thou shalt not’. In the recent past it was our duty to be thrifty, to save, to be humble, and to live in a social space dominated by institutions that prohibited individual expression. Today’s happiness imperative, demands we spend in order to strive for ever-greater enjoyment. This is a triumph for consumer capitalism that thrives on this excessive desire to enjoy, i.e. Jouissance.
Applying the idea of Jouissance, to the growing strength of extreme nationalists, helps to explain, and in turn hopefully challenge, how they tap into the politics of enjoyment as well as into the fears of citizens. The politics of enjoyment is the harder battle to win, as it is more subversive and hidden, if citizens are enjoying themselves, it is difficult to change their minds politically!
Enjoying national identity vs exploiting national identity
Expressions of national rituals, national culture and supporting national teams at world events are enjoyed and celebrated globally; but what happens when this enjoyment becomes excessive? Seeking surplus enjoyment (plus-de-jouir) tips the balance between developmental identification and regressive identification. When surplus or total enjoyment is sought i.e. Jouissance; danger exists, for this entails chasing a utopian fantasy. Fundamentalist religion, cults, fascism, totalitarian communism, and extreme nationalists have in common a utopian vision where total Jouissance can be obtained (often based on an imaginary golden past age). In nationalist terms, the obstacle to obtaining total Jouissance, is a toxic other from which it has to purify itself;, in the West this is archetypically the Jew, Muslim, immigrant, homosexual or Gypsy. The toxic other not only spoils the purity of the nation blocking them from obtaining total Jouissance, they are also hated for enjoying the nation more than us, they ‘steal our enjoyment’(Stavrakakis 2007) . The Gypsy is free to roam and not pay taxes! The Jew gets richer than us! The black man has more sexual pleasure than us! These old racial stereotypes still circulate, and some new ones are present that haven’t yet been addressed. The rising anti-muslim rhetoric, is exploited on the basis of fear (Islamic terrorism) but the question of enjoyment is rarely dealt with on a conscious level. Is there not an (unconscious) envy of the enjoyment and pleasure gained from the strength of Muslim communities that has been diminishing in secular Europe? The envy of a community spirit, and a religious belief that anchors them, when in the west we often feel lost, when our elderly are lonely and we feel dislocated from any sense of belonging? Perhaps ‘the other’ has the Jouissance the nationalists so desire?
Whilst this identification with total Jouissance, conjured up by extreme nationalism is a dangerous fantasy, it is fantasy that is enjoyable at two levels.
- Extreme nationalists take pleasure in their flag waving, their solidarity, their imaginary pure past and the fantasy of a utopian future that will deliver total Jouissance.
- They also take great ‘pleasure in their displeasure’, i.e. it is pleasurable to have an easy target to scapegoat and blame, to project their anger and displace their impotence
Paradoxically Marie Le Pen, like her father before, UKIP, the Golden Dawn and other right wing nationalists in Europe all need immigrants far more than anybody else. For their politics and right wing nationalists in Europe all need immigrants far more than anybody else. For their perverse pleasure relies on two factors;
Firstly, to enjoy their identity as nationalists they must chase an utopian pure Jouissance, which cannot be fulfilled. So their rational case is dependent on ‘the immigrant who is stealing our enjoyment and blocking us from achieving utopia’.
Secondly, they can only take ‘pleasure in their displeasure’if the immigrant occupies the space of scapegoat to create their displeasure in the first place.
If the immigrant did disappear by magic or by ethnic cleansing, simply another other would be found as the far right cannot exist without them. This is happening in Northern Ireland. Polish, Chinese and other immigrants are being targeted by reactionary Loyalists, who previously were ‘at war’with Catholics.
Don’t chasepure Jouissance! In organizational terms we see leaders trying to attain pure Jouissance by aligning company culture behind a grandiose vision, and make ‘one company culture’. Companies can end up creating totalising cultures, eliminating difference and those who question their cultural norms are silenced or ejected for being disloyal, and this is where danger lurks. A silent, compliant and conformist culture may tick the employee engagement boxes, but it has a double edge. Don’t forget religious cults would, and Enron did attain very high ‘engagement’scores, but it doesn’t bode well for anybody when difference is denied. Healthy tensions and conflicts are at the heart of any democratic and creative process.
The coach-coachee relationship can also chase Jouissance; a fantasy bubble where coach and coachee imagine they are the ‘perfect couple’working in pure harmony, often against the bad external world outside of their sessions. Jouissance is a fantasy that must be traversed ! Come back to reality and do not collude with a leader who is chasing Jouissance, challenge- be a reality sounding board.
Stavrakakis, Y. (2007). The Lacanian Left. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 320, 11.
 I thank Larry Hirschhorne for clarifying this difference